igniteonly_receipt_consumer

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

The description discloses that it never edits code, merges, approves, etc., which provides some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it fails to explain what 'verified' means, what happens if verification fails, or the side effects of emitting a wake packet. The behavioral information is incomplete.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, but could be slightly more structured to include usage context. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the output (wake packet) behavior, error conditions, or typical sequence of use. Users are left wondering what the tool returns or if any side effects occur, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already describes each parameter, though the tool description does not elaborate further on parameter usage.

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 primary action: consuming a NudgeOnly receipt bridge result and emitting a wake packet when verified. It also explicitly lists what it does not do (edit code, merge, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like igniteonly_api or nudgeonly_receipt_bridge.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it notes what it does not do, it omits prerequisites (e.g., after a successful nudgeonly_receipt_bridge call) and does not reference sibling tools or when this consumer should be invoked over others like pushonly_wake_pusher.

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