bridge_receive

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. However, the description does not clarify whether reading messages removes them from the queue or if they persist until acknowledged. Since a separate bridge_ack tool exists, this behavior is important but not specified, so the description adds only partial transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that avoids unnecessary detail or verbosity. It is well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding parameter-specific guidance in a clear order.

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?

The tool lacks an explanation of its output schema, which is present but not described. It also does not mention how it interacts with bridge_ack (e.g., whether messages are auto-acknowledged or require explicit ack). This incomplete context makes it difficult for an agent to fully understand the flow.

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 description only explains two of the four parameters: 'since_id' and 'consumer_id'. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter (pagination/volume control) or the required 'channel' parameter (which channel to read from). With 0% schema description coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the correct invocation.

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 purpose: 'Read durable messages.' This is a specific verb with a defined resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bridge_send, bridge_ack, and bridge_clear by focusing on reading rather than sending, acknowledging, or clearing.

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 parameter usage guidance for 'since_id' and 'consumer_id' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bridge_wait (likely a blocking wait) or how it relates to bridge_ack. The absence of contextual usage instructions leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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