chimerax_script_recipe_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read', which is too vague; it doesn't state whether this is read-only, what happens if the recipe_id is missing, whether it returns the script content, or any side effects. The description provides essentially no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, though the lack of detail prevents a perfect score.

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 having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions. It doesn't explain what a recipe is, how the ID is obtained, what max_chars and include_script control, or any error behavior. The complexity is moderate, and the description does not sufficiently compensate.

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. The phrase 'by ID' provides meaning for recipe_id, but max_chars and include_script are completely unexplained in both the schema and the description. The description adds minimal value for one parameter and none for the other two.

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 'Read a bundled ChimeraX Python script recipe by ID' clearly identifies the action (read), the resource (bundled ChimeraX Python script recipe), and the access pattern (by ID). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like chimerax_script_recipe_search, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies that the user must already have a recipe_id, but it doesn't mention that the ID might come from a search tool or provide any exclusion criteria. This is minimal to no guidance.

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