grove_bus_receive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: messages are 'ordered by priority', and it requires 'grove_read' permission. This extra detail enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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 two sentences plus a clear Args list, with no redundant wording. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each parameter explanation is concise and directly useful. It earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown here) and moderate complexity, the description covers essential aspects: what it fetches, ordering, permission requirement, and key parameters. It does not describe return structure, but that is handled by the output schema. Minor omissions like pagination details are not critical for a read-only tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains three of four parameters clearly: 'agent' (receiver), 'channel_name' (restrict to one channel), and 'since_id' (cursor for id greater than this). However, 'app_id' is not described, leaving a gap. Still, the explanations are meaningful and specific.

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: 'Fetch bus messages addressed to this agent (or broadcast), ordered by priority.' It uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('bus messages'), and differentiates from siblings like grove_bus_send (send) and grove_get_history (history) by focusing on receiving messages addressed to the agent.

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 implies usage (to receive messages addressed to the agent), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions a prerequisite ('Requires grove_read'), which is helpful, but lacks explicit routing to or away from sibling tools.

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