Moderation Transition Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses a genuinely non-obvious trait: transitions are not entities but belong to workflows, so the lookup scans every workflow's transitions. It also explains the JSON:API relationship limitation that motivates include=states. It stops short of covering error/not-found behavior or auth needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by two supporting sentences explaining the workflow-scoped lookup and the include trick. Every sentence adds information, though the phrasing is slightly verbose around the JSON:API relationships aside.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers purpose, the unusual lookup semantics, and the one non-obvious parameter. Missing only edge-case behavior such as a not-found error response, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does meaningful work: it documents the otherwise opaque include parameter by naming the exact value ('include=states') and its effect. transition_id's meaning is self-evident from the purpose sentence. Other potential include values or their formats are not enumerated, keeping this from a 5.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+key: 'Get a single moderation transition by ID.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling moderation_transition_list (plural listing) and from create/delete/execute variants by signaling a single-item fetch.

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?

It gives a concrete conditional instruction ('Pass include=states to attach the states of the workflow that owns it'), which tells the agent when to use that option. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use this one (e.g. vs moderation_transition_list), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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