trmnl_get_recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by decoding install_method values (simple_install, read_only_fork, oauth_choice) and the inherit_oauth condition, which is real domain context an agent needs to interpret the result.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the endpoint citation is a useful anchor. The install_method sentence is long but every clause carries distinct semantics; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the key response concept (install_method), and annotations cover safety. But for a nested-param tool at 50% coverage, the missing explanation of 'profile' and the required 'id' leaves a gap an agent must guess at.

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 only 50%, and the description adds nothing about the two parameters — neither the nested 'path.id' recipe identifier nor the 'profile' selector is mentioned. Instead it explains a response field (install_method), leaving the under-documented inputs without compensating guidance.

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?

Starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Read a recipe and how it installs', and the endpoint line 'GET /api/recipes/{id}' pins down scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like trmnl_search_recipes or trmnl_get_recipe_markup, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 usage — inspect a single recipe's install behavior — but never states when to choose this over trmnl_search_recipes (find a recipe) or trmnl_get_recipe_markup (get its markup) or trmnl_install_recipe (act on it). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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