bridge_receive

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation and the polling pattern, but fails to mention potential edge cases (e.g., behavior when channel doesn't exist, error handling, rate limits, or message ordering). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent use.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds actionable usage guidance. Perfectly concise for the information conveyed.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate high-level purpose and usage hints but lacks essential details like return format, error scenarios, and message ordering. For a tool intended for real-time polling, the missing output structure could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the polling use case and the role of 'since_id', but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides for 'channel' and 'limit'.

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 'Read messages' and the resource 'from a named channel', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bridge_send (write) and bridge_channels (list channels). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related read tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 context for usage: 'Pass since_id to only get messages newer than a known message' and 'Poll this every few seconds to simulate real-time communication.' This gives clear when-to-use hints but does not offer explicit when-not or alternatives among siblings, relying on implied distinctions.

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