sage_messages_receive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states atomic claiming, exact replay behavior on token reuse, that it never claims later messages, and that SAGE signs a read acknowledgement per message. This is unusually rich and transparent for a tool with zero 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?

The description is three sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds meaningful behavioral detail without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral aspects (atomic claim, replay, read acks) and is sufficient given the simple schema and absence of an output schema. However, it does not describe error conditions, timeouts, or what a response contains beyond the signed ack, leaving some edge cases unspecified.

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 50% (only receive_token has a description). The tool description adds context for receive_token by explaining its role in replaying the exact batch, but it does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The schema's coverage is partial, and the description only partially compensates for the missing limit explanation.

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 begins with a specific verb phrase 'Receive and atomically claim' and identifies the resource as 'one bounded local message batch'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sage_message_send, sage_message_reply, and sage_inbox, which handle other aspects of messaging.

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 clear context: this tool is used for receiving and claiming a batch of messages with an idempotency token. It explains the replay semantics and the fact that replaying never claims later messages. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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