state_machine_sm_can

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (returns a boolean) and non-destructive. The phrase 'currently allowed' implies it depends on the current state of the machine. However, it does not specify error handling (e.g., if state machine doesn't exist) or side effects, but for a simple check, it is sufficiently 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies the return format. No superfluous words. Front-loaded with the tool's function.

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 boolean check tool with an output schema (return '{allowed: bool}'), the description is largely complete. It explains what it does and what it returns. Missing details like existence requirements or validation, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of output schema.

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 description must compensate. It gives context: 'name' identifies the state machine, 'to_state' is the target state for the transition. However, it does not explain that 'name' must refer to an existing machine or that 'to_state' must be a valid state defined in that machine. Minimal value added beyond parameter names.

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 transition to a given state is allowed, specifying the verb 'Check', the resource 'transition', and the scope 'to_state'. It mentions the return value '{allowed: bool}'. Among sibling tools like state_machine_sm_trigger or state_machine_sm_state, this tool's purpose is distinct as a query for permission.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., state machine must exist) or contrast with tools like state_machine_sm_state (get current state) or state_machine_sm_trigger (execute transition). The agent has no context on when to prefer this check.

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