transportInfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains the tool is what ADT queries before opening the transport dialog and highlights the subtle difference between a REQUEST and a task, which the backend doesn't spell out. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage timing, and a crucial caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff.

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 read-only tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (the target request and available ones) and when to call it. It doesn't detail the exact response shape, but that's not critical given its low risk and the annotations. The request/task distinction is a thoughtful addition.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description implicitly refers to objSourceUrl as 'this object' but doesn't add further detail about devClass or operation beyond their schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it determines which transport request a change to a given object would go into and which requests are available. It avoids tautology and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on object-to-request mapping rather than request creation or details.

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 explicitly advises calling this before a write outside $TMP, citing that a write without a request fails at the last step. It also warns about the request vs. task distinction. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, though the context is clear.

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