read_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the recipe is parsed into four component types and that scale multiplies quantities during parsing. This explains meaningful behavior beyond the schema, though it does not cover error cases or file-resolution behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: one high-value purpose sentence followed by two terse parameter definitions. Every sentence contributes practical information, and the example path adds clarity without bloat.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read operation with an output schema available, so the description does not need to restate return values. It covers what path means, how scaling works, and what parsing produces, giving an agent enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 fully document parameters. It explains path as relative to the recipe directory with a concrete example and notes the optional .cook extension, and it defines scale as a multiplication factor for quantities. Both parameters are meaningfully documented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one recipe parsed into ingredients, cookware, timers and steps.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from list_recipes and read_recipe_source, since it promises parsed, structured output for a single recipe.

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?

Usage context is implied through wording such as 'one recipe' and 'parsed,' but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over read_recipe_source or other siblings. It gives no exclusions or alternative routing guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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