Get a first-party artifact recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a 'reviewed prompt and static HTML starter,' which hints at content shape, but it doesn't disclose pagination, catalog size, or failure modes. A 3 is appropriate given annotations carry the heavy lifting.

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?

A single tight sentence covering both modes and the switching condition, front-loaded with the list action and ending with the discovery hint. No wasted words.

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?

For a 2-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description is adequate for the main use cases. But it leaves the 'version' parameter unexplained and doesn't describe the return shape (the catalog format, what a recipe object contains), which matters more because no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 schema only gives types and constraints (recipeId pattern/maxLength, version integer). The description explains the semantic effect of omitting recipeId and that recipeId selects one recipe, which is genuinely useful. It does not explain the 'version' parameter at all, leaving a real gap. Baseline lift from 0% coverage is offset by the undocumented version param.

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 a dual purpose: list the recipe catalog, or retrieve one reviewed prompt and static HTML starter by recipeId. This distinguishes it from publishing siblings (publish_html, publish_presentation) and page-record getters (get_page). However, it doesn't fully separate itself from get_page, which also retrieves an artifact, so it's not a 5.

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?

It gives one condition: 'Omit recipeId to discover the catalog.' That tells the agent how to switch modes but doesn't state when to use this tool vs get_page or the publish tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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