transport

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: authentication requirement, cost conditions, auto-approval of allowance, on-chain payment submission and confirmation waiting, return of jobId, and the effect of payment failure (resource stays escrowed, action resumable). This exceeds expectations for transparency.

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?

Every sentence adds essential information, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise yet thoroughly covers prerequisites, cost, side effects, return value, and recovery, with no wasted words.

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 complexity (multi-step transport with conditional costs and failure states), the description fully equips an agent: it names the prerequisite session, cost preview, return type, and failure recovery. Despite no output schema, it clearly states the jobId and directs to status tracking, making it complete for correct invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: explains path as waypoint chain with eligibility constraints, resourceId as resource type requiring balance at source, and amount as positive integer string. This provides actionable context beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 opens with 'Move a resource between cells along a waypoint chain,' a specific verb+resource pair that clearly defines the tool's action and scope. It further distinguishes from siblings by naming related tools like quote_transport, get_transport_status, and resume_transport, establishing clear differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: requires a session ('call authenticate first'), advises previewing cost with quote_transport, and explains scenarios (free vs. cost routes). It also tells what to do on failure (resume_transport) and that the tool auto-approves a one-time allowance, giving clear when-to-use and when-not context.

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