hb_conn_receive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Get' and 'recent local inbox messages' but does not clarify whether receiving consumes or deletes messages, whether it marks them as read, whether the connector must exist, or any auth or rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, scope, and target directly.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers both parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what 'receive' means behaviorally. It is adequate for basic selection but leaves gaps around return format and side effects.

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 schema already documents both the connector and limit parameters. The description adds the scoping phrase 'for a connector' and 'recent' implies limiting results, but it does not add syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (recent local inbox messages) with scope (for a connector). It is clearly different from sending or listing connectors, but it does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like hb_conn_list or hb_conn_status.

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 retrieval usage but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives. It does not mention hb_conn_send or other connector tools that an agent might confuse it with.

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