fgui_get_transition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. '读取' signals that the operation is read-only, and '当前组件' scopes it, but nothing is said about missing-name behavior, active-document requirements, or side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes to purpose, scope, or lookup mode.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description leaves 'current component' undefined and omits when to use the tool and what happens if the transition does not exist. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 schema has no description for the required 'name' parameter (0% coverage), but the description's '按名称' explicitly ties the parameter to the transition's name within the current component. For a single obvious string parameter, this is sufficient added meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('读取'), a concrete resource ('当前组件的一个 Transition'), and the selection mode ('按名称'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling fgui_list_transitions, which lists transitions rather than returning a single named one.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over list/upsert/remove transition alternatives, and no prerequisites such as requiring a current component. The intended usage is only weakly implied by the verb '读取'.

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