flix_receive_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'accept and receive' without explaining side effects, state changes, or whether it requires an active transfer. This lacks transparency for a mutating 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 description is very short, but the phrase 'accept and receive' is redundant and not maximally efficient. It is not overly verbose, yet it under-specifies meaning, making it a borderline minimum.

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 file transfer operation with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the transfer lifecycle, what 'receiving' entails, or how it relates to siblings like pause or cancel. This is inadequate for an agent to use 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?

The schema description covers 100% of parameters, with transferId described as 'Transfer ID to receive'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('receive') and resource ('file transfer'), making it distinct from sibling tools like flix_send_file. However, 'accept and receive' is somewhat redundant, which slightly reduces clarity.

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, prerequisites (e.g., pairing, discovery), or the expected flow. The description is a bare statement with no contextual direction.

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