ctf_recv_until

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses basic behavior (read until pattern, timeout), but does not specify what happens on timeout, pattern matching details (e.g., regex or exact match), or blocking behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 2 parameters, an output schema (not shown but indicated), and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow. However, it lacks details on edge cases (timeout error, pattern format) and usage context relative to siblings.

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%, but the description explains pattern as '要匹配的文本模式' (text pattern to match) and timeout as '等待的最大秒数' (max wait seconds), adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 '接收数据直到匹配指定模式' (receive data until matching a specified pattern), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ctf_recv (likely receives without pattern) and ctf_send/ctf_sendline.

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 for waiting until a pattern is received, but it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like ctf_recv, or mention when not to use it (e.g., timeout scenarios, connection state).

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