igniteonly_receipt_consumer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool emits a wake packet when verified, but lacks detail on side effects, idempotency, or dependencies. The statement about not editing code helps, but overall transparency is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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 very concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clear exclusion list. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description does not explain the workflow or how this tool fits with siblings like nudgeonly_receipt_bridge. It also lacks guidance on the 13 optional parameters and expected output for a tool with no output schema.

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 descriptions for all 13 optional parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's specific action: consume a NudgeOnly receipt bridge result and emit a compact IgniteOnly worker wake packet when verified. It also explicitly lists actions it does NOT perform (edit code, merge, approve, close, mark done), distinguishing it from potential sibling tools that might do those.

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 implied usage context by stating what it never does, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like nudgeonly_receipt_bridge or igniteonly_api. No direct guidance on prerequisites or scenarios.

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