get_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the recipe is 'non-destructive' and returned as JSON, but does not confirm read-only behavior, error handling, or response format beyond 'JSON'. There is no mention of side effects or authorization.

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, succinct sentence that directly states the tool's function without extraneous 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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks details about the return value's structure (only says 'JSON'), any error cases, or usage context. With no output schema or annotations, the description should offer more context but remains minimally adequate for a getter.

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?

The schema has one parameter, image_id, with zero description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's role or format, adding no semantic value beyond the schema's 'Image Id' title. While the parameter is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the 0% coverage as required.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'the image's current non-destructive edit recipe (JSON)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_recipe, update_recipe, reset_recipe, and get_recipe_schema.

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 when one needs the current recipe for an image, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_recipe_schema) or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling names are available but not referenced in the description.

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