transport_return

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mode-dependent behavior difference but does not explain side effects, permissions, error handling, or what 'local-ledger guidance' means. The output schema exists but is not referenced; the description is moderately transparent but lacks depth.

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 extraneous words. It front-loads the main action and mode distinction, making it efficient for quick scanning. Every word adds value.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the context of many sibling tools and the complexity of transport workflows suggests more information about preconditions, errors, or mode triggers would be beneficial. The description is minimally complete but could be improved.

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%, so both parameters have descriptions. The tool's description reiterates the schema's point for include_text and adds a mention of modes for run_id, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns a non-hosted report/output payload and provides a mode distinction (hosted vs non-hosted). However, the terms 'non-hosted' and 'local-ledger guidance' may be unclear without additional context, and the purpose could be more explicit in distinguishing from sibling tools.

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 mentions two modes but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like transport_abort or transport_submit_report. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given, leaving the agent to infer context from the mode distinction.

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