scf_get_system_recipes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: recipes are matched via catalog template, alias, or fallback, and the tool returns matched_via, template summary, and per-maturity-level steps. This gives the agent a useful picture of the retrieval behavior and response shape.

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?

One tightly packed sentence leads with the primary purpose, then specifies matching behavior and return contents. No filler or redundant restating of the title/schema.

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 two-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage, the description explains the return payload and matching semantics well. It does not mention what happens when no template/alias/fallback match exists or how this relates to recipe generation, but those are minor gaps rather than blockers.

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%, with both org_id and system_id already documented and sourcing guidance provided. The description does not add substantive parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

Description names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('evidence-collection recipes for a system'), and the matching mechanism ('catalog template, alias, or fallback'). It clearly differentiates from sibling scf_generate_system_recipes by focusing on retrieval rather than generation.

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 implies a read/retrieval use case and notes how recipes are matched, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over scf_generate_system_recipes or scf_get_recipe_generation_status. The presence of a 'generate' sibling suggests important context that is left to inference.

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