transport_ack

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only mentions basic action and two modes, but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the action is destructive or reversible.

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, concise sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with key action and mode distinction. Slight improvement could be structured listing of behaviors per mode.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description is too brief for a tool with two modes and optional parameters. It does not explain what 'local-ledger guidance' means or behavior when run_id is omitted.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.

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 verb 'acknowledge' and the resource 'Transport run', distinguishing it from siblings like transport_abort or transport_status. It also hints at two modes, but could be more explicit about what 'acknowledging' entails.

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 context by mentioning non-hosted and hosted modes, giving a hint about when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the many transport-related siblings.

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