list_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the '[READ]' tag reinforces it, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the ordering behavior ('oldest first'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result limits, truncation, or whether the same transaction can appear across calls — gaps that matter for a monitoring tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the mode tag and the resource, then a compact Args block. Two lines carry the whole definition with no filler, though the Args formatting is slightly verbose for a single optional parameter.

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 no-required-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the definition tells the agent what is returned (open transactions), in what order, and what the sole parameter means. It lacks detail on returned fields or result-size behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 schema only exposes a bare 'target' property with a null default. The description compensates by explaining that it is a target name from config and that omitting it uses the default, which is exactly the semantics an agent needs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list open InnoDB transactions) plus meaningful scope qualifiers: 'oldest first' and the diagnostic intent 'stuck-transaction hunting'. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it stops short of 5.

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 parenthetical '(stuck-transaction hunting)' implies the diagnostic scenario, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternatives are given. An agent could reasonably wonder whether lock_waits, lock_wait_rca, or long_running_queries is the better starting point in the same situation.

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