userTransports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, output format, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Retrieves transports for a user.' It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively in a complex environment with many transport-related alternatives.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('user' and 'targets'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'transports' entail or how 'targets' affects results. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Retrieves transports for a user' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (transports) with a scope (for a user), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportInfo', 'transportsByConfig', or 'createTransport', leaving ambiguity about what specific aspect of transports is retrieved. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.

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's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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