transport_submit_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mode-dependent behavior (hosted returns guidance), but omits important details like side effects (e.g., file writes, permissions required, whether data is persisted). 'Submit' implies mutation but the safety profile is unclear.

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 sentence of 18 words, efficiently front-loading the action and mode distinction. Every token adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 having 7 parameters and mode-dependent behavior, the description is brief and lacks explanation of return values (though output schema exists) and selection criteria between modes. It does not help the agent understand complex interactions, leaving gaps.

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 already documents each parameter. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., mode-specific behavior is already in the schema's parameter descriptions). 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 action ('Submit a Transport report') and distinguishes the tool by specifying mode-dependent behavior (non-hosted vs hosted mode). This differentiates it from sibling tools like transport_validate_completion or transport_return.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions two modes but fails to explain scenarios where each mode is appropriate, nor does it list sibling tools as alternatives.

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