valid_stage_transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list for validation purposes, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned list. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds usage guidance in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and usage context adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., response format, errors) and doesn't fully address parameter semantics, leaving room for improvement in completeness for effective agent use.

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 50% (only the 'id' parameter has a description). The description adds some value by clarifying that 'type' refers to 'work item (issue, ticket) or part (enhancement)' and 'id' is 'The DevRev ID', but it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details on 'type' or explain parameter interactions. With 2 parameters and partial coverage, the baseline is met but not exceeded.

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's purpose: 'gets a list of valid stage transition for a given work item (issue, ticket) or part (enhancement).' It specifies the verb ('gets'), resource ('valid stage transition'), and target objects, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'update_work' or 'update_part' beyond the 'before updating' hint.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: 'Use this before updating stage of the work item or part to ensure the transition is valid.' It implies an alternative (directly updating without checking) but doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like 'update_work' or 'update_part' as alternatives, nor does it specify exclusions.

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