Parse recipe prose and render the validated graph as self-contained HTML in one call. Costs credits; fetch /v1/pricing first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| tier | No | standard | |
| theme | No | classic |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior; the description adds the critical behavioral note that credits are consumed and pricing should be checked first, going beyond the structured hints.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, the cost warning is concise and essential.
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 description covers the main behavior and cost prerequisite, but lacks explanation of return formats, error handling, and the relationship to sibling tools, especially given no output schema.
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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only implies the text parameter via 'recipe prose'; it does not explain the tier or theme enums, leaving semantics unclear.
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 parses recipe prose and renders the validated graph as self-contained HTML in one call, distinguishing it from the separate parse_recipe and render_recipe siblings.
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 warns about credit costs and instructs to fetch /v1/pricing first, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over the separate parse/render tools or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: converting, parsing, rendering, and listing styles. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (convert_recipe, list_styles, parse_recipe, render_recipe) using snake_case.
4 tools is well-scoped for a recipe HTML conversion service, covering core operations without bloat or deficiency.
The set covers the full workflow: parsing prose, rendering graphs, a combined convenience call, and style exploration. No obvious gaps.