workflow_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the output (which transitions are ready/blocked) but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or has no side effects. It also does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or behavior when no transitions exist. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 plus an Args line, with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter is explained in a structured way. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (one optional param, output schema present), the description adequately covers the purpose, the parameter, and the return behavior. It does not explain edge cases or related sibling interactions, but these are not essential for a guard-check tool.

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 only parameter, project_dir, is described as the project directory defaulting to the working directory. The schema only provides a default of null, so the description adds meaningful context about what the parameter represents and its default behavior. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 runs guard checks for all transitions from the current state and returns which are ready or blocked with per-guard status. The verb 'check' and the specific resource 'transitions' make it distinct from sibling tools like workflow_transition (which performs transitions) and workflow_status (which shows status).

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 this is a pre-flight check but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, such as 'use before workflow_transition' or 'use to debug guard failures'. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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