get_operation_transitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that results are bounded and that causality is not interpreted, which is useful, but it does not explain what 'bounded' means or how traversal behaves.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information from the schema. It is very compact, though the two qualifiers are dense and would benefit from slight elaboration.

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?

Despite rich annotations and an output schema, the description omits usage context and parameter semantics for a five-parameter tool. Required artifact_id and optional cursor/limit/max_depth behavior are left entirely to the schema, so the agent lacks enough context to confidently select and invoke the 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 0% and the description does not define artifact_id, limit, cursor, trace_id, or max_depth. The word 'bounded' weakly hints at limit/max_depth, but the agent is given no parameter-level meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 names the resource ('parent/child transitions') with two clarifying qualifiers: 'bounded' and 'without interpreting causality'. This distinguishes it from causality-oriented lifecycle tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 a use case—retrieving bounded parent/child transitions—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related traversal/lifecycle tools. It gives a limitation (no causality interpretation) but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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