athena_transport_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context that the returned object includes a 'frozen' input/output boundary packet and digest, which suggests an immutable snapshot. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing run_id), return format, or whether any other data is included, leaving some transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple with only one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the main purpose. However, it lacks mention of error cases, the response structure, or alternatives like recent/replay, which would make it more complete given the large sibling set and absence of annotations.

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 schema has one parameter (run_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on what run_id is or how it should be formatted beyond the schema's minLength. The name 'run_id' is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional semantic meaning, so it fails to compensate for the low schema description 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 ('Fetch') and the resource ('one persisted TRANSPORTRUN'), with additional specifics about what is included (frozen input/output boundary packet and digest). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like athena_transport_recent or athena_transport_replay, though the singular 'one' and reference by run_id imply a direct fetch.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as athena_transport_recent or athena_transport_replay. The description implies you should use it when you have a specific run_id, but it does not state exclusions or mention other available tools.

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