transportsByConfig

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. 'Retrieves' suggests a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more informative. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification given the lack of other context.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'transports' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a retrieval tool with no structured output information, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (configUri and targets). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what a 'configuration URI' entails or how 'targets' affects the retrieval. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 by configuration' clearly states the action (retrieves) and target (transports), but it's vague about what 'transports' are in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportInfo', 'userTransports', or 'transportConfigurations'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the resource 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid configUri), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'transportConfigurations' or 'getTransportConfiguration'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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