Ottieni una ricetta di pagina

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: always generates Bootstrap Italia markup, respects accessibility notes, and composes specific page sections (header, breadcrumb, content, footer). It also states determinism ('Genera SEMPRE'). This covers the key behavioral traits an agent needs to know for safe invocation.

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 appropriately concise, with each sentence earning its place. It front-loads purpose, then design system constraints, then explicit negative guidance in one short, imperative sentence. No wasted words, though it could be slightly restructured for scannability.

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 has only 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a solid job covering what the agent needs: what's produced (page skeleton with all sections), the design system, accessibility compliance, and explicit do-not-substitute instructions. The guidance is comprehensive for a well-defined, bounded 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only 1 parameter (id). The schema already documents that id is the recipe id and directs users to list_recipes for ids. The description focuses on what the tool produces rather than parameter details. Since coverage is complete, baseline 3 is appropriate — the description adds value by explaining the output context but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 what the tool does: returns the complete, compliant skeleton of a PA page (e.g., a municipal service page), composing header, breadcrumb, content, and footer with required links. It specifies the design system (Bootstrap Italia 2.x) and distinguishes itself from generating generic markup. This is specific and actionable.

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 provides clear usage context (for building PA pages with mandatory links) and explicit negative guidance: 'Non sostituire con Bootstrap generico, Tailwind o markup non conforme' (don't substitute with generic Bootstrap, Tailwind, or non-conforming markup). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling context (list_recipes exists) is hinted. Strong guidance overall.

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