get_transaction_status

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the return structure (in_transaction, started_at, read_only_mode) and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not explicitly state behavior on errors or prerequisites, but the information provided is sufficient for a simple status check.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a bulleted list of return fields. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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?

Given zero parameters and no input schema, the description covers the essential return structure. It is complete for a simple status query, though it omits potential error conditions or prerequisites. The context signals indicate no nested objects, and the description substitutes for the missing output schema.

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 (schema has no properties). Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 'Get the current transaction status' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling transaction tools (begin, commit, rollback) which perform actions rather than queries.

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 usage is implied: it checks transaction status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description does not say when-not to use it.

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