userTransports

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 states 'Retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it includes historical or pending transports. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details (e.g., specifying 'SAP transport requests') to enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 for a tool with potential complexity (e.g., retrieving user-specific data). It does not address return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool 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, documenting both parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the context of 'user' (e.g., username, ID) or the implications of 'targets'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('transports for a user'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'transports' are (e.g., SAP transport requests, data transfers) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportInfo' or 'transportsByConfig', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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. With many sibling tools related to transports (e.g., 'transportInfo', 'transportsByConfig'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it unclear how this tool fits into the workflow.

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