state_machine_sm_status

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

The description indicates a read operation but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or error behaviors. Since no annotations are present, the description carries full burden but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the return value list.

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 one sentence, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every element is necessary.

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?

Given the simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately lists return fields. It is complete enough for a status tool, though it could mention that the state machine must exist.

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?

The single parameter 'name' is self-explanatory but the description adds no additional meaning or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to elaborate on the parameter's purpose or expected format.

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 it returns the full status including specific fields (states, current, allowed_next, transition_count). It distinguishes from siblings like state_machine_sm_state which returns only the current state.

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 usage for obtaining comprehensive status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., state_machine_sm_state for just current state). No exclusions are mentioned.

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