cpu_list_my_transports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It implies a read-only query (listing deliveries) and notes the returned fields, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Additional context about side effects would improve 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?

The description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the main action and optional filters; the second adds detail on output and a practical use case. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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 covers the tool's purpose, output fields, and a typical use case (finalizing deliveries). It lacks information on pagination, sorting, or behavior if no deliveries exist, but these are minor for a simple list tool. Given no output schema, the description provides sufficient context.

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 schema already describes the filter parameter with enum and default. The description adds value by integrating the parameter into the overall purpose ('optionally filtered') and listing the filter values in context. However, it mostly repeats schema info, so not a huge addition.

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 ('List your deliveries'), identifies the resource ('ones you paid for'), and mentions optional filters. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for deliveries you paid for, contrasting with other list tools like cpu_list_lots.

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 explicitly advises using this tool to find deliveries to complete with cpu_finalize_delivery, indicating a primary use case. It mentions optional filters (all, in_transit, delivered, ready_to_finalize) but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare with siblings like cpu_get_transport_status.

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