get_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add real value by documenting the returned shape, including the two recipe kinds ("md" pattern vs "scss" import) and the differing body format for each. It omits error behavior for a missing slug, any size limits, and whether the body is returned verbatim or processed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the field enumeration follows. The parenthetical clarifications of body format are dense but each 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?

Since no output schema exists, the description must describe the return value, and it does so field-by-field including the kind-dependent body format and the category/complexity pair. Only missing pieces are failure modes and whether the recipe is the full unabridged body.

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% and the singular `name` is documented there with example slugs ("print-to-pdf", "combobox"), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond implying a single recipe is selected, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ("Return one recipe") and enumerates what that recipe contains (name, kind, category/complexity, usage, body), which is far more concrete than a tautology. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_recipes/search_recipes by scoping to a single recipe, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the get_X naming convention against siblings like list_recipes and search_recipes: fetch one fully-resolved recipe by slug rather than enumerating or searching. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_recipes, nor any note on what happens for an unknown slug, so guidance remains inferential.

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