get_operation_transitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds limited new behavioral context. It does add that results are 'bounded' and that causality is not interpreted, but doesn't elaborate on pagination or depth limits. This is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and the qualifier adds relevant nuance.

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 tool with five parameters and numerous sibling tools, the description is too terse. It doesn't clarify what a 'parent/child transition' is, how to use pagination or depth, or how this tool differs from related operations. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for missing usage context.

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 0%, and the description doesn't explain any of the five parameters. 'Bounded' hints at limit/max_depth, but cursor, trace_id, and artifact_id semantics are left entirely to the schema, which only provides titles. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('parent/child transitions') with a distinguishing qualifier ('without interpreting causality'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on causal analysis or lifecycle gaps.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_operation_window or get_lifecycle_gaps. The phrase 'without interpreting causality' implies an exclusion, but it's not stated as a clear usage context, leaving the agent to infer.

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