get_transaction_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return values including in_transaction, started_at, and read_only_mode. It implies a safe read operation without side effects, though it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness.

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 concise with one opening sentence and a bullet list of return values. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary details.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior and return values. Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description supplements it adequately. For a simple status check, no additional context is needed.

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 no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.

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 starts with 'Get the current transaction status,' which is a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like begin_transaction, commit_transaction, and rollback_transaction by focusing on status retrieval.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tool names suggest its role as a read-only status check, the description lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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