Scaffold a recipe from an existing TD network

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description specifies read-only behavior, validation against RecipeSchema, the dual output mode (write_path vs structuredContent), and the overwrite flag behavior. This adds valuable context.

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 sentences: first states purpose and inverse relation, second details steps and output options, third emphasizes read-only. No redundant information.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (inversion, serialization steps, validation, write mode, read-only). It references RecipeSchema but does not detail its structure; edge cases are not covered. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The global description enriches understanding by explaining the overall workflow (inverse of apply_recipe, serialization of nodes/parameters/connections/cross-refs) and the purpose of include_defaults and detect_cross_refs beyond their individual descriptions.

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 clearly states it is the inverse of apply_recipe, walks a COMP's child network, and serializes it to a draft RecipeSchema JSON. This distinguishes it from siblings like apply_recipe and serialize_network.

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 positions it as the inverse of apply_recipe, indicating when to use it (to serialize a network to a recipe). It implies context but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, though the inversion is clear.

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