transport_validate_completion

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

No annotations are provided, so description is the sole source. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or whether the action is read-only or mutating. The name suggests validation without changes, but this is not explicit.

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, but it is too brief for a tool with two parameters and validation logic. It could include more without being overly verbose.

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 description omits what constitutes successful validation, the output format (though output schema exists), and how to interpret results. For a validation tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond existing parameter descriptions. The mention of 'inline hosted evidence or non-hosted runtime records' echoes the evidence parameter but adds no new details.

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 validates completion, specifying two modes: inline hosted evidence or non-hosted runtime records. It distinguishes from siblings like transport_submit_report and transport_ack, but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage after target exit, but lacks when-not conditions or references to sibling tools.

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