udp_recv

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details blocking/non-blocking behavior via timeout_seconds and describes the packet structure (source address/port, length, base64 data, optional text). However, it omits edge cases like empty results, errors, or buffer limitations.

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, front-loads the primary action, and avoids redundant information. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers core usage and packet details. It lacks some context like error handling or the need to previously open a socket via udp_open, but is sufficient for correct invocation with the output schema filling return structure.

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 description should explain parameters. It adds meaning for max_packets ('up to max_packets') and timeout_seconds (blocking vs non-blocking), but does not explain socket_id or clarify default behaviors beyond the schema's defaults.

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 action: 'Receive one or more UDP datagrams'. It specifies the resource (UDP datagrams) and scope (up to max_packets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tcp_recv which handles TCP, providing clear differentiation.

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 receiving UDP datagrams and explains timeout behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., socket_poll, tcp_recv). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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