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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context about inspecting executable recipe content, but does not disclose behavioral details such as size limits, truncation, or handling of unsupported files.

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 compact sentences front-load the operation, scope, examples, and purpose, then provide file-discovery guidance. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description supplies the essential purpose and discovery workflow. Fully documented inputs, comprehensive safety annotations, and an output schema cover the remaining invocation needs.

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 100%, including the recipe ID format and the requirement to use a path as listed by get_recipe. The description’s filename examples add a little context, but it largely repeats rather than expands the parameter guidance.

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?

“Read one of a recipe’s files” gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, while examples such as compose.yaml and recipe.json clarify the available content. Mentioning that get_recipe lists files also distinguishes this content-retrieval tool from its closest sibling.

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 phrase “to see exactly what it runs” supplies a concrete inspection use case, and “get_recipe lists its files” guides agents to the sibling tool for file discovery. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when other siblings are preferable, but the routing guidance is clear.

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