Get an Umami recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the useful detail that the response contains 'full editable text fields', indicating what data is returned. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal but not empty.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core functionality without any unnecessary words. Every element ('Get', 'full editable text fields', 'by id') earns its place. It is appropriately concise.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the action, the parameter's role, and the type of data returned. It lacks details like error responses or authorization requirements, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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 explicitly maps 'by id' to the 'recipeId' parameter, confirming its purpose. This gives the parameter clear meaning beyond the bare schema definition. The mention of 'editable text fields' also hints at the response shape, adding context for what the parameter leads to.

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 ('Get') and resource ('recipe') and identifies the retrieval method ('by id'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that list, search, create, or edit recipes. The phrase 'full editable text fields' further clarifies the scope of the response.

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 context is clear: this is for fetching a single recipe by its ID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like find_recipes for searching, but the 'by id' qualifier implies that it's for direct ID lookup, which differentiates it from search tools. No explicit exclusions are given, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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