read_recipe_source

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the output includes frontmatter, which is useful, but it does not address error behavior, path resolution, or the read-only nature. For a simple read operation this is adequate, but gaps remain.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every element—'raw', 'source text', 'frontmatter included'—carries meaning.

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 output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap. However, the description lacks path semantics and usage differentiation from read_recipe. For a one-parameter tool it is mostly complete, but an agent would benefit from knowing where 'path' comes from and when to choose the raw variant.

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% and the description never mentions the 'path' parameter. The agent must infer that 'path' identifies a recipe from context, but no format, relative/absolute nature, or relationship to list_recipes is documented, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Return the raw Cooklang source text') and resource ('of a recipe'), with the scope detail 'frontmatter included.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read_recipe, which is implicitly about a parsed or processed view, by emphasizing raw source.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of read_recipe or other siblings. The word 'raw' implies a use case, but no alternatives, exclusions, or context are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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