nudgeonly_receipt_bridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is deterministic, read-only, and makes no ownership decisions or completion state changes. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., must receive output from nudgeonly_api) or error behavior for missing inputs, leaving some gaps.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, approximately 25 words. Every word adds value, clearly stating the action and constraints. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 conciseness, the description lacks completeness given the tool's complexity (16 optional parameters, no output schema, no required fields). It does not explain how parameters influence the output path (receipt vs. escalation) or what the tool returns. The agent needs more context to use it effectively.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only summarizes the tool's purpose. 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 function: turning a verified NudgeOnly painpoint into a worker receipt request or WakePass escalation candidate. It specifies the resource and output types, and the phrase 'no writes, no ownership decision, no completion state' helps distinguish it from siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool ('Deterministic bridge only') and what it does not do, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like pushonly_wake_pusher or igniteonly_receipt_consumer. The agent must infer usage from the behavioral constraints.

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