receive_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'trigger the receive action,' but doesn't explain side effects (e.g., whether files are stored, returned, or require polling), any auth requirements, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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 single-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded, but brevity comes at the cost of missing useful context. It's not overly verbose, so it earns a good score.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify the expected result of triggering a receive, any side effects, and applicable scenarios. It covers neither, leaving the agent to guess about return values and when to prefer this over related file tools.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, and the description adds no additional semantic meaning. It doesn't clarify how connectorId and workspaceId relate beyond what the schema states.

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 uses the verb 'trigger' and specifies the resource as 'the receive action of a connector,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_file or get_file. It lacks detail on what receiving entails, but the core 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a connector setup, or contrast with get_file/list_files. The only hint is 'download/receive files,' but no explicit when-to-use scenarios are given.

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