Get Transition Kind List

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description only needs to confirm safety. It does so implicitly by stating 'Get all available' without explicit mention of non-destructiveness, but the annotations cover this. 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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's action and result. No fluff or repetition; it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple read-only list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the essential purpose, and the annotations provide safety context. Complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter details. The schema is empty, and there is nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter-related knowledge, but given no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate (baseline for 0 params).

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 lists all available OBS transition kinds, correctly implying a read operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like obs-get-filter-kind-list and obs-get-input-kind-list by specifying 'transition kinds'.

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 is clear about its purpose but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving transition kinds, which is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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