get_allowed_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It partially compensates by describing the return shape (list of transitions with target state info and paths), but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, permission requirements, or behavior when the current state has no valid transitions.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted wording; the return-value sentence follows immediately and earns its place since there is no output schema.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does supply the essential return-shape information and implies the read context. It falls short only on operational traits (errors when no transitions exist, read-only nature), which are not covered elsewhere.

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 both schema_path and instance_path are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get valid next states from the current workflow state', with the return content ('valid transitions with target state info and path(s)'). It doesn't name or contrast with the sibling evaluate_transition, so an agent can't fully distinguish the two from the description alone.

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?

Usage is only implied – the phrasing suggests you call it when querying what states are reachable. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as evaluate_transition (which likely tests a specific target rather than enumerating options).

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