Recipe Consume Preview Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of safety disclosure. It clearly states the tool is a preview ('without actually consuming') and thus non-destructive. It also describes the behavioral output (list of ingredients, amounts, stock sufficiency). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the non-mutating nature is explicitly conveyed, which is the key behavioral trait.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and safety property. Each sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the output and the recommended usage. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description sufficiently conveys the non-destructive behavior and the situational context. It could mention error handling for unknown recipes, but that is minor and the core requirement—previewing consumption—is fully covered.

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 100%, so the parameter 'recipe' is already documented as 'Recipe name or ID.' The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond confirming that the preview is for a recipe. This meets the baseline for high coverage but does not elevate the semantics further.

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 states a specific verb ('Preview'), a resource ('what stock would be consumed'), and explicitly distinguishes it from recipe_consume_tool by saying 'without actually consuming'. It also defines the output scope (each ingredient, amount needed, stock sufficiency), making it easy to differentiate from siblings.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use this before recipe_consume_tool to verify.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for just viewing recipe details) or compare it with other preview/simulation tools like recipe_fulfillment_tool, so it falls short of full exclusions.

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