scf_get_system_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions matching via catalog template, alias, or fallback and the return format, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor discuss error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is partially transparent.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary action and matching logic, the second lists return fields. There is no redundancy, it is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return fields (matched_via, template summary, per-maturity-level recipe steps). Parameters are well-documented. The tool is simple and complete for its purpose, though it does not mention pagination or potential edge 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?

Both parameters (org_id, system_id) are fully described in the input schema with instructions on how to obtain them. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; the baseline for 100% schema coverage is 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?

Description clearly states that the tool retrieves evidence-collection recipes for a system via catalog template, alias, or fallback, and lists the return fields. This distinguishes it from other tools like scf_get_system_catalog_template or scf_generate_system_recipes.

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?

Description implies usage context (retrieving recipes for a system) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are provided.

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