sui_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 only states that it gets transaction details, without mentioning return value structure, error conditions, or other behavioral characteristics. There is no information about whether it includes events, effects, or status.

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 sentence, 'Get transaction details by digest', which is direct and front-loaded. There is no unnecessary information, and it effectively communicates the core action in minimal words.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is too brief to be considered complete. It does not specify what 'details' includes, whether the response contains the full transaction object, events, effects, or just basic information. It also does not mention potential error responses for invalid digests. For a tool that an agent may need to extract specific data from, this is insufficient.

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 input schema already documents the 'digest' parameter with the description 'The transaction digest', providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds 'by digest', which reinforces the parameter's role but does not add new semantic meaning such as format or valid values. Thus, the description adds minimal value 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 indicates that the tool gets transaction details using a digest as input. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('transaction details'), making its purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'sui_get_object' or other chains' 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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations. Usage is implied by the tool name and the digest parameter, but the description does not state when it should be preferred over related tools.

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