lightning_receive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the QR code return and time estimate, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with encrypted wallets (password parameter). The 'generate' verb implies non-destructive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key details (limits, time, QR). Every sentence is valuable and no waste.

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?

Given no output schema, the description partially covers return value (qr_code_path) but omits other potential fields like invoice string or expiration. However, for a simple receive tool, it is adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions amount limits and QR code, but adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantic meaning for password or wallet_name.

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 generates a Lightning invoice to receive L-BTC, with limits and a note about the QR code. This distinguishes it from siblings like lightning_send (send) and lightning_decode (decode).

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 context on usage: receiving L-BTC, time estimate (~1-2 min), and instructs to display QR to user. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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