aptos_get_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get transaction details' without stating whether the operation is read-only, what happens on an invalid hash, auth requirements, or the structure of the returned details. The name implies a read operation, but this is not stated explicitly.

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 redundant information. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the core purpose.

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?

The tool description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of an output schema. It does not clarify what 'transaction details' includes, the expected response format, or any edge cases. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a notable gap for an agent.

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 schema provides a description for the single required parameter 'hash' ('The transaction hash'), and the tool description repeats this. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description adds no additional meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieve transaction details using a hash. This distinguishes it from sibling aptos_get_account_transactions, which lists transactions by account, and other chain-specific get_transaction tools.

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 use case is implied: when you have a transaction hash and need its details. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions, such as noting that account-level queries should use a different tool. This matches the 'implied usage' level.

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