azeth_receive_messages

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully documents: end-to-end encryption nature, account determination via AZETH_PRIVATE_KEY environment variable, initialization latency on first call, and dual behavioral modes. Missing rate limits or caching details, but covers critical runtime characteristics well.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage trigger, behavioral modes, return values, implementation notes, and examples. Front-loaded with essential information. Slightly verbose but information-dense; the mode differentiation and return structure documentation justify the length given no output schema exists.

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?

Excellent compensation for missing annotations and output schema. Describes return structure (array with sender, content, timestamp, conversation ID), encryption characteristics, environment variable dependencies, and performance characteristics. Covers all 3 parameters conceptually and provides concrete usage examples. Complete for a message retrieval 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 has 100% coverage (baseline 3). Description adds value by explaining the interaction model between parameters—the 'Two modes' section clarifies that omitting 'from' triggers inbox overview behavior while including it enables specific sender filtering with limit application. Examples demonstrate valid parameter combinations.

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?

Description opens with specific verb 'Read' and resource 'incoming encrypted messages from the XMTP messaging network.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling azeth_send_message by describing this as the 'inbox view' for reading what others sent you, versus sending.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when' guidance for checking messages from other agents. Documents two distinct usage modes (with/without 'from' parameter) that clarify behavioral alternatives. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to azeth_list_conversations, but the 'inbox' framing provides clear contextual boundaries.

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