get_transport_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It uses 'Retrieves' to imply read-only behavior and enumerates the returned data, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or edge cases, and the 'Implements FR-1 requirements' line adds no behavioral insight.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence is direct and informative. The second sentence ('Implements FR-1 requirements') is peripheral project context but does not materially bloat the description.

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?

The tool has low schema complexity and no output schema, so the description partially compensates by listing return content. However, it does not explain how it differs from the sibling tool, and the absence of any usage guidance leaves a notable completeness 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?

The input schema already provides full documentation for the single parameter (transportId) with a format example (DEVK900123). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics, matching the baseline score.

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 'Retrieves transport request metadata' and lists specific data items (description, owner, status, complete list of modified objects). It identifies a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'analyze_transport_changes', which could also involve modified objects.

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 the sibling tool. The description does not include any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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