ShipSwift

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the returned artifact (copy-paste-ready Swift code, architecture explanation, optional backend code), exceeding baseline without contradiction.

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 reasonably concise, employing three sentences that each contribute meaning. It front-loads the main verb ('Get by ID') and adds detail without excess fluff, though the second sentence could be slightly tightened.

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 single-parameter read tool with solid annotations and a descriptive output summary, the description covers the essential context. It omits response format and error cases, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and lack of an 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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with examples (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond implying the ID is the lookup key, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Get a recipe by ID' and enriches with return content (Swift source code, backend code). It distinguishes from sibling list/search tools via the 'by ID' qualifier, but does not explicitly name or contrast them, so it falls short of a 5.

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 use when a specific recipe ID is known, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use listRecipes vs searchRecipes, nor any exclusions or alternatives. It lacks a direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the nature of recipes ('not a tutorial') and the scope of coverage, but does not disclose response format, pagination, or ordering. This is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by context and categories. It uses four sentences, the first is the key action. Though dense with technology names, it remains structured and not bloated, earning a 4.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what recipes are, their characteristics, and category coverage. It does not explain return format, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining what the 'module' category includes (auth, camera, subscriptions, chat, settings) and aligning the enum values with natural language, helping the agent understand parameter semantics.

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 lists production-ready SwiftUI recipes, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings (getRecipe, searchRecipes) by its listing nature, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use listRecipes versus searchRecipes or getRecipe. The description implies a browsing tool but does not state exclusions or alternative cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the insight that search covers 'full source code' and extends beyond titles/tags, which is useful but not deeply behavioral. No contradictions with 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 and well-structured: two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance with representative topics. Every word adds value, avoiding 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?

For a simple search tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and appropriate annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is searched, how to use it, and provides examples, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 single 'query' parameter is fully described in the schema with examples, and schema coverage is 100%. The description reiterates that the query is a keyword but adds no additional syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('recipes'), and indicates the scope ('across titles, descriptions, tags, and full source code'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getRecipe and listRecipes by emphasizing keyword-based search across multiple fields.

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 clear usage context: 'Use for any iOS, SwiftUI, or backend topic' with concrete examples. It implies the tool is appropriate for broad topic searches, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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