receive_direct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses the critical side effect: 'it stops the daemon, calls signal-cli receive directly, then lets the daemon restart.' The agent is warned that this tool is disruptive and not a simple read 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 three concise sentences that front-load the core behavior, then provide context and the preferred alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it behaves, and how it relates to the sibling tool. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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%, and the single timeout parameter is already described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Receive messages by calling signal-cli directly, bypassing the daemon') and clearly differentiates it from the sibling receive_messages by framing it as the direct, non-daemon mode. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from the normal receive path.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this as a fallback when the daemon is stuck or unresponsive' and 'Prefer receive_messages (daemon mode) for normal use; use this only for troubleshooting.' This clearly states the condition and names the preferred alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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