get_transaction_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only,' which is useful, and outlines the reported information. However, it does not explain behavior when no transaction is open, whether any permissions are needed, or what the exact response looks like. This is sufficient but not rich.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence delivering the core purpose and the second adding the crucial read-only note. Absolutely no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main return aspects (open status, opened time, deferred saves) but omits edge cases like no open transaction, error scenarios, or what 'gated saves' means. It is adequate but leaves gaps a user may need to infer.

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 single parameter sessionId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The only hint is the word 'session,' but no details about the parameter's role, format, or constraints are provided. The description does little to compensate for the missing schema coverage.

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 specifies the verb ('Report') and the resource ('whether a model transaction is open on the session'), and includes distinctive details about what is reported (opened time, deferred gated saves). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like begin/commit/rollback_model_transaction by focusing on status rather than mutation.

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 implies usage for checking transaction status and notes it is read-only, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus committing, rolling back, or beginning a transaction. No clear alternative or exclusion is provided, so usage context is only implied.

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