Fl Transport Command

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation via 'fire' but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open project), side effects, idempotency, or what happens on invalid command names. It also does not describe the output, even though an output schema exists, leaving the behavior largely opaque.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and then provides a comprehensive command list. It is efficient and avoids redundant wording, though the list is long. The structure is acceptable for a generic command tool.

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 tool's generic nature, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'value' parameter, any constraints on command names, or the behavioral effects of firing commands. While an output schema exists, the description alone does not give an agent enough context to call the tool correctly, especially with no annotation support.

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 explain all parameters. It lists valid values for 'command' via examples, but provides no explanation for the 'value' parameter, which is an integer with a default of 1. The agent is left guessing what 'value' controls, making the description insufficient for correct invocation.

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 fires any FL global transport command by FPT name and enumerates many valid commands. This distinguishes it from siblings like fl_transport (which likely manages transport state) and fl_exec (which executes scripts). The verb 'fire' and the resource 'transport command' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply says what it does without mentioning that it should be used for transport commands not covered by fl_transport or other specialized tools. An agent has no explicit criteria for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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