get_recipe_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions 'read-only' in the keyword dump, implying a safe read, but does not state whether authentication is required, what the response contains (binary file, URL, metadata), or error behavior for missing assets. The endpoint format hints at behavior but leaves significant gaps.

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 cluttered with redundant keyword lists ('get, fetch, read, retrieve, view, show, read-only') and repeats the title and endpoint. The useful information (endpoint, read-only) is buried among noise, violating front-loading and economy of words.

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 read operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the return type, authentication needs, or how it differs from get_recipe_img. The keyword dump adds SEO-style terms but not the contextual detail an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only shows the path template '{recipe_id}/{file_name}', which mirrors the required parameters but adds no meaning about format (e.g., UUID for recipe_id, file name constraints) or whether file_name is case-sensitive or includes an extension. This is insufficient for a 2-param tool with zero schema docs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get Recipe Asset') with the exact REST endpoint documented, so an agent knows it retrieves an asset for a recipe. However, it does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling 'get_recipe_img', which also fetches recipe media, leaving ambiguity about which to use for images vs. other assets.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recipe_img or upload_recipe_asset. The keyword list implies 'read-only' retrieval but provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent select it correctly.

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