cpu_get_transport_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'Reads the deliveries projection,' signaling a read-only operation with no side effects. It also discloses the returned status fields (delivered, ready to finalize). It does not mention not-found behavior or auth requirements, but for a simple read this is sufficient.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Get one delivery...') and lists all relevant output details without any redundant or extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input (deliveryId), the nature of the operation (reads a projection), and the exact returned data points (source/target cells, resource, amount, arrival time, delivered status, finalize readiness). This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter `deliveryId` is already well-documented in the schema, including where to obtain it ('from `transport` or `list_my_transports`'). The description merely restates 'on-chain deliveryId' and adds no new semantic value. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Get one delivery by its on-chain deliveryId' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like `list_my_transports` (which lists multiple) and mutating actions like `cpu_finalize_delivery`.

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 implies usage when you already have a delivery ID and need its status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The schema adds context (ID comes from `transport` or `list_my_transports`), but that is outside the description itself. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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