speckle_send_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns guidance only and has no data-transfer side effect, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention authentication or network behavior, but for a simple instruction-fetching tool, these are less critical. The 'Does NOT transfer data' statement adds transparency beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, under 40 words, and completely free of filler. It front-loads the core action ('Get connector-specific instructions') and immediately clarifies the non-transfer behavior. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and no annotations are present, the description covers purpose, return type (guidance), and key exclusions. It is slightly incomplete regarding parameter semantics and the distinction from receive_instructions, but overall the description is sufficient for a straightforward instruction-lookup tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It does not mention project_id, model_id, or message at all. The tool name and general context suggest these identify a Speckle project/model, but the description offers no explicit mapping, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.

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 connector-specific instructions for sending BIM data to Speckle.' It identifies the specific verb (get), resource (instructions), and domain (BIM data to Speckle). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'speckle_receive_instructions' by focusing on sending rather than receiving.

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 states what the tool does NOT do ('Does NOT transfer data') and points to an alternative ('use native Speckle connectors for actual data push'). This is a clear usage exclusion. However, it does not mention when to use this tool instead of the sibling 'speckle_receive_instructions', though that is contextually implied.

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