get_transport

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 underlying API endpoint (/api/transport), the meaning of the returned information, and typical values ('usb' or 'wifi'). This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention potential errors or authentication requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes an API endpoint, typical return values, and a use case in a small amount of text. It could be shorter, but all sentences contribute meaningful information.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, the API endpoint, possible return values, and a use case. It stops short of describing the exact output format or error scenarios, but is sufficient for a basic getter.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema indicates no properties. The description accurately implies there are no inputs, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 retrieves the current network transport type used by the Busy Bar device, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on transport type, which is unique among the listed get_* 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 provides a clear use case: 'Diagnose connectivity path issues; shows whether the device is reachable via USB network interface or a Wi-Fi connection.' This gives context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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