Send Get

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details: returns text content or file metadata with accessUrl, and directs to receive for downloads. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior with text, and next step for files.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description adequately covers return types (text or file metadata) and provides a workflow hint (use receive). Could mention error cases, but for a read-only tool with good annotations, it's fairly complete.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description reinforces the meaning of the text parameter and adds that file Sends return metadata including accessUrl, providing extra context 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves Sends owned by you, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Sends'. It differentiates from sibling tools like keychain_send_list (list vs single get) and keychain_receive (for downloading file bytes).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on using text=true for text content and default for file metadata, and directs to keychain_receive for downloading file bytes. Missing explicit contrast with keychain_send_list, but the context is clear enough.

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