Transports and packages

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. The description adds useful scope about 'own, modifiable by default' and the precondition outside $TMP, but it does not explain return behavior, pagination, or how the listed requests differ by user/package.

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 two short sentences with the main operation front-loaded and the usage condition following immediately. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, 44% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the required action value, the meaning of several optional parameters, or the confusing schema where only 'list' is allowed but other fields reference create_task/move semantics.

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 only 44% across 9 parameters, and the description itself adds no parameter-level guidance. It does not clarify action, package, transport, objects, include_released, or the apparent mismatch between the lone 'list' action and schema fields described for create_task/move.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list changeable transport requests, with scope noted as own/modifiable by default. It distinguishes the purpose reasonably well, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as bw_search or bw_system.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: use it before bw_write when an object lives outside $TMP. That is explicit timing and context, but it does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives beyond bw_write.

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