get_statetree_transition_targets

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It transparently details the returned data format (two lists with specific fields for states and meta_targets) and mentions the asset_path argument. However, it does not describe potential errors or edge cases.

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 concise, well-structured with clear breakpoints for the two return lists, usage note, and parameter description. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool's purpose (discovering transition targets for subsequent mutations), the description completely covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to use it (including parameter), and its place in a workflow. The existence of an output schema complements the description.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter. The description adds meaning by stating 'asset_path: Content path to the StateTree asset,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 gets valid transition targets for a StateTree, lists the two returned categories (states and meta_targets), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like add_statetree_transition and set_statetree_transition_property by stating it should be used before them.

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 provides explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Use this before add_statetree_transition or set_statetree_transition_property to discover valid target_state values.' This directly guides the agent on proper invocation order.

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