condosplit_types

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it clearly frames the operation as read-only ('Elenca') and scopes the result to expense types, rules, and criteria from a named config file. It does not mention error behavior if the config file is missing, but the read-only nature is transparent.

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?

A single, well-formed Italian sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately states the resource and what is included in the result.

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, optional-parameter list tool, the description sufficiently communicates the input (config file, default covered by schema) and output content. It lacks explicit output shape and error handling, but no output schema exists and the description already names the returned entities.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter config_path already has a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Elenca') and resource ('tutti i tipi di spesa configurati in condo.config.json') and clarifies the output includes rules and allocation criteria. This cleanly differentiates it from siblings like condosplit_split, condosplit_init, and condosplit_schema.

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: call this when you need the configured expense types and their splitting rules. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as condosplit_schema or condosplit_history.

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