speckle_receive_instructions

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key non-behavior (not pulling objects) and points to correct alternatives. It also implies a read-only info-returning operation, though it doesn't detail return formats or side effects beyond what the output schema already covers.

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?

Two sentences: front-loaded with purpose, then a clear exclusion and alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and exclusions, and an output schema exists to detail return values. However, it lacks any guidance on parameter usage or prerequisites, leaving the meaning of version_id ambiguous for a less familiar agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for project_id, model_id, or version_id. Parameter names are self-explanatory but the optional version_id semantics are entirely undeclared, leaving the agent to infer its purpose.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'version info and instructions for receiving Speckle data', distinguishing it from sibling tools like speckle_send_instructions. It also explicitly contrasts with data retrieval tools by saying 'Does NOT pull objects'.

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 provides explicit when-not guidance: 'Does NOT pull objects — use native connectors or specklepy operations.receive() for data retrieval'. This names alternatives and clarifies that this tool is for instructions, not data fetching.

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