invariance_recipe_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not mention error handling, response format, or side effects. Since the read-only nature is covered by annotations, the description is not required to repeat it, but it also adds nothing beyond the obvious.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 getter with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information: what it does and how to identify the recipe. It does not need to elaborate on return format for such an operation, so nothing critical is missing.

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% — the input schema already documents the 'id' parameter as 'Recipe ID or slug.' The description does not add any additional explanation about the parameter, so it provides no value beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('recipe'), and how to identify it ('by ID or slug'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like invariance_recipe_list (which lists) and invariance_recipe_update (which modifies), so an agent can easily tell what this tool does.

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 gives the basic action but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like invariance_recipe_list or invariance_recipe_update. The sibling names imply that this is for fetching a single recipe, but no selection criteria or exclusions are stated.

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