get_condition_details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't specify any constraints like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output format might be (e.g., structured data vs. text). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output expectations. For a read-only tool in a context with many siblings, more context would help the agent use it effectively, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'condition_name' clearly documented as 'The name of the condition to get details for'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples of condition names (e.g., 'Poisoned', 'Prone') or formatting requirements. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific D&D 5E condition'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_all_conditions' (which likely lists all conditions) or 'search_conditions' (which might search/filter conditions), leaving some room for improvement in sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_conditions' or 'search_conditions'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing to know the exact condition name, and doesn't mention any exclusions or when not to use it, relying solely on the implied specificity from 'specific'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.