Receive Notification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses FIFO behavior, 24-hour retention, timeout-driven `null` returns, the 5–60 second range, and the critical fact that a received event is not consumed until `delete_notification` is called.

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?

Three tight sentences, with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by return behavior and the necessary ack instruction. Every sentence carries essential information.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: what the tool returns, when it returns `null`, how long events are kept, how to acknowledge them, and the consequence of not acknowledging. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 the description must explain `receive_timeout`, and it does: it defines the value range (5–60 seconds) and its behavioral effect on the call. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema type and default.

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 a specific operation: receiving one event from an incoming FIFO queue, with return values `receiptId` and `body` or `null` on timeout. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing queue semantics, FIFO order, and the explicit tie to `delete_notification` for consumption.

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?

It gives clear operational context: poll the incoming queue, wait up to `receive_timeout`, and call `delete_notification` after processing to avoid re-reading the same event. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `get_last_incoming_messages`, but the queue/ack model makes the intended use clear.

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