evaluate_transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result will be PERMIT, DENY, or INDETERMINATE with a receipt, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, what the receipt contains, or how INDETERMINATE should be handled.

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 two compact sentences with the core action and return values front-loaded. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

The schema fully documents the four parameters, and the description covers the return values. However, without annotations or an output schema, the definition leaves important context unstated: read-only behavior, receipt meaning, failure modes, and when this tool is preferable to related governance tools.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further parameter semantics such as actor identity requirements, path formats, or how target_state is resolved, so it remains at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource: evaluating whether a workflow transition is permitted. It also states the return categories, making the operation concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_allowed_transitions or evaluate_decision, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus get_allowed_transitions, validate_governance, or evaluate_decision. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions.

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