tunnel_receive

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

Without any annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: decryption, SHA256 verification, refusal on mismatch, untrusted status, and that the sender's filename is display-only. No contradictions with missing 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 concise (around 80 words) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: main action, verification steps, trust warning, and display-only note. No redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers usage and safety. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., success or error confirmation), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: artifactId (fetch by id) and savePath (user-chosen write path). It adds meaning beyond raw names, though format constraints are not detailed.

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 action: fetch an artifact by id and write to a user-chosen path. It includes decryption and verification details, making it distinct from sibling tools which are about connection management or sharing.

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?

Provides explicit warnings about the untrusted nature of received files, instructing the agent to get human approval before writing or executing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when to prefer this over alternatives.

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