condosplit_coordinates

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Elenca' implies a read-only operation and the description identifies the source file and data categories, but it does not disclose behavior on missing files, invalid config paths, or whether config_path influences which coordinates file is read.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the file, and the content examples efficiently, every part earning its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. The only notable gap is the implicit connection between config_path and the coordinates file, but the default path and clear examples keep this from being a major blocker.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the only parameter, config_path, including its default. The tool description adds no meaning about why or how config_path relates to condo.coordinates.json, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Elenca' (lists) and names the exact resource: payment coordinates saved in condo.coordinates.json, with concrete field examples (IBAN, banca, intestatario). This clearly distinguishes it from its sibling condosplit_coordinates_save, which implies a write operation.

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 intended use is implied by the list-oriented wording and by the sibling coordinate_save tool, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or what conditions call for it. It gives no exclusions, just an implicit read/list purpose.

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