trmnl_get_recipe_markup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that this exposes a template to seed a private plugin and that writeMarkup consumes each size, but says nothing about what the response looks like (a map of size to markup?) or that omitted sizes default to all.

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?

Three tight fragments with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The middle fragment about it being a starting point for a private plugin is the most valuable part yet is placed where it can be skimmed past.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for describing the return value — a set of markup strings keyed by size — and it does not. For a nested-schema, three-parameter read that returns multi-size template content, that omission leaves a real gap.

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 33% at the top level (the nested `path` object carries no description of its own), so the description needs to compensate more than it does. Its one contribution is linking the `sizes` query values to the sizes accepted by writeMarkup, which adds meaning beyond the schema's enumerated list, but `profile` and the path/id nesting go unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read the markup of a recipe) and narrows scope via the endpoint path, which distinguishes it from trmnl_get_recipe (metadata) and trmnl_write_markup (writes). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly named trmnl_read_markup sibling, so an agent must infer that one targets recipe markup and the other plugin-setting markup.

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 phrase 'a starting point for a private plugin of your own; writeMarkup takes each size' implies a read-then-write workflow, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing against trmnl_read_markup or trmnl_get_recipe.

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