transport_get_auto_advance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get auto-advance status') without detailing aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, what the output format might be, error conditions, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'auto-advance status' entails, the return format, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely returns state information, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single parameter 'layer' with its enum values. The description mentions 'presentation or announcement layer', which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get auto-advance status') and the target resource ('for presentation or announcement layer'), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings, such as 'transport_cancel_auto_advance' or other transport-related tools, which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone. This lack of explicit guidance is a significant gap.

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