get_transitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only in nature by describing it as 'Get' transitions, which implies no side effects. However, it doesn't clarify whether this is a pure read operation, what happens with an invalid from_state value, or whether returned transitions include edge cases like self-transitions. Acceptable but thin on behavioral detail.

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?

One sentence, zero waste. Front-loaded with the verb 'Get', immediately followed by the object and scope. Efficient and well-structured.

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 single-parameter tool with a clear purpose and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, there is no indication of what the return value looks like (array of strings? objects with fields?). The description would benefit from noting the response structure, but for this simplicity level it's minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (from_state), and the schema already documents example values ('PLANNING', 'PENDING', 'OPEN', 'WORK_FINISHED', 'CLOSED'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'from a given work order state' which mirrors the parameter name. Since schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get valid status transitions from a given work order state.' It clearly indicates what the tool returns (valid status transitions) and the input (work order state). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_workflow, which might overlap, but the purpose itself is clear and specific.

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 context (when querying possible next states from a work order state) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_workflow. There's no when-not-to-use or exclusionary language. The implication is present but not explicit.

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