workflow_next

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Show' and 'Returns' convey a read-only query with no mutation, and the description explains what the output contains. It could be more explicit about side effects or failure behavior, but the core transparency is solid.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: purpose, return semantics, then the parameter line. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is essentially complete: it states what is returned, why to use it, and the parameter default. It does not guide the agent toward sibling tools explicitly, but that is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the free-text description is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully covers the sole optional parameter by identifying project_dir as the project directory and specifying its default as the working directory.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show allowed transitions from the current state with guard status.' This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like workflow_transition and state-only tools like workflow_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 phrase 'so the agent can decide what to do next' gives clear decision context for when to call the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is evident and not misleading.

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