ctf_recv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies blocking with a timeout but does not explain what happens on timeout (empty string, exception) or whether it is destructive. No mention of connection state 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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it omits crucial details, making it more sparse than concise.

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 one parameter and presence of output schema, the description does not clarify return structure, error cases, or blocking semantics. It mentions 'received text data' but lacks detail on format or when data is available.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the timeout parameter as 'max seconds to wait', which adds some context beyond the schema title, but does not specify units or behavior beyond waiting.

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 receives response data from a CTF program, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ctf_recv_until, which receives until a pattern, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like ctf_recv_until. The description only mentions the timeout parameter without context for selection.

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