list_transitions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by revealing the sources of legal moves (flow scheme, backend workflow, free movement), providing behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a supplementary line about sources. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are handled elsewhere. However, the description omits prerequisites (e.g., card must exist, board must exist) and does not clarify the role of board_id. It is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks completeness for a tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage.

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 0% (no descriptions in input schema). Two parameters exist: required card_id and optional board_id. The description mentions card implicitly ('for this card') but does not define either parameter or explain board_id's purpose. It partially compensates by describing the overall purpose, but parameter semantics are not clarified.

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: 'What moves are legal for this card right now, and under which resolved scheme.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (card), and the specific outcome (legal moves with scheme). This distinguishes it from siblings like move_card (which performs a move) and list_flows (which lists all flows).

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 context about sources (flow scheme, backend workflow, free movement) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_flows or move_card. It implies usage for checking legal transitions before moving, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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