get_transformation_details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It uses the verb 'get' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is safe, non-mutating, or what permissions are required. It also omits any mention of pagination, empty results, 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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and object, followed by the key metadata types. There is no fluff, and it is appropriately brief for a tool with one parameter.

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 getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is functionally adequate. However, it could clarify how this differs from get_object_details and whether the transformation must be of a specific type, and it doesn't mention if the metadata is always available. These are minor gaps for a low-complexity tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the transformation_id parameter with an example. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 operation ('get'), the resource ('transformation'), and the specific kind of information ('detailed metadata including source, target, and rule information'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other object types such as infoobjects or queries, and it is not a tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_object_details or list_queries. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and similar getters.

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