cmmn-check_sentry_condition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states no updates occur, a key behavioral trait. However, it omits error behavior, permissions, or return format, leaving some transparency gaps for a simple read operation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence delivers core action and side-effect; the second adds usage context. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

No output schema exists; the description does not specify return value (e.g., boolean or result object). It also doesn't clarify parameter requiredness (schema has 0 required params). For a simple check tool, lacking return info reduces completeness.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (condition, event, source_ref) with clear names and descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond schema, only confirming 'single condition'. Baseline at 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 'checks if a single condition is satisfied without updating any sentry', specifying verb, resource, and side-effect. It also distinguishes from siblings like `cmmn-evaluate_sentry` by highlighting the non-updating 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 notes it's 'useful for AI to preview conditions', implying read-only preview usage. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, the context of sibling tools (e.g., evaluate_sentry) provides implicit contrast.

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