kratos_list_conditions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety, state side effects (if any), or mention output format/pagination. It adds the filter availability but lacks detail on edge cases or permissions. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes only essential clarifying details. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It provides the resource type, the category of conditions, and the presence of filters. Given the simple nature of a list operation and the reference to sibling behavior, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke and understand the gist of what it returns.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional filters' and references the sibling tool for filter semantics, which adds some meaning. The parameter names 'application' and 'name_filter' are self-explanatory in the schema, but the description does not explicitly explain their allowed values or how they interact. The reference to kratos_list_elements is a helpful pointer, but not a full explanation.

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 tool lists condition type names registered in Kratos, with a specific scope (surface/line/point conditions used for loads and boundary terms). The verb 'List' and resource 'condition type names' are specific, and the parenthetical adds useful context. It distinguishes from the sibling kratos_list_elements by the resource type, even though it references the sibling for filter behavior.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to enumerate condition types. The phrase 'optional filters as in kratos_list_elements' provides a pointer to sibling tool behavior, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools for other use cases, though the resource type itself makes the primary use case clear.

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