sqs_receive_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely states 'receive' without explaining key traits like visibility timeout effects, long polling, or that messages are not automatically deleted after retrieval. The description essentially restates the tool name and adds no behavioral context.

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 a single short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified and essentially restates the tool name. It does not earn its place because it adds minimal informational value, making it more an under-specification than a concise, informative statement.

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?

This tool has four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description. The description fails to cover critical context such as return format, behavior when the queue is empty, or how visibility timeout affects subsequent operations. An AI agent would lack sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is sufficient for this dimension.

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 'Receive messages from an SQS queue in LocalStack' clearly identifies the action (receive) and resource (SQS queue), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sqs_send_message and sqs_delete_message. However, it lacks specificity about the exact behavior (e.g., long polling or message retrieval semantics), so it doesn't fully separate it from all possible related operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sqs_send_message, sqs_delete_message, or sqs_purge_queue. No context is given about prerequisites, use cases, or situations where another tool would be preferred.

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