List Transport Requests

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining response shape, status code meanings ('D'/'L' = modifiable, 'O'/'R' = released), parameter defaults, and a fallback behavior ('raw' XML returned when structured parsing yields nothing). This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling), and every sentence adds relevant information. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the additional details are organized and scannable.

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 description is complete for a read-only listing tool with no output schema: it explains return shape, status codes, defaults, an example invocation, and error-handling fallback. It also connects to a downstream tool (sap_write_source), giving the agent enough context to use the result correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and schema descriptions already document both 'user' and 'response_format' with defaults. The description mostly restates this information, though it adds a small amount of context through examples and the note about defaulting to SAP_USER. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('workbench/customizing transport requests (and their tasks) owned by a user'), and the service used ('via the CTS ADT service'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like sap_create_transport and sap_release_transport by focusing on listing existing transports.

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 a clear usage context with the example 'What transports do I have open?' and notes that the returned request number can be used as 'transport' for sap_write_source. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the listing intent is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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