mealie_get_chefkoch_recipe

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 the return data (ingredients, instructions, times, etc.) and notes that nutritional values are only 'falls vorhanden' (if available), but it does not mention network access, authentication, error handling, or whether the operation is strictly read-only. The basic retrieval behavior is implied but not fully specified.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and usage.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description is fairly complete: it states the return data, the condition of data availability, and the intended downstream use (display/import). An output schema exists, so return details are not strictly necessary. It could mention error handling or prerequisites, but overall it covers the essential context.

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?

The schema has one required 'url' parameter with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explicitly explain this parameter. However, the tool name and the recipe context make it evident that the URL points to a Chefkoch recipe. The description adds little beyond this inference, so it only partially compensates 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 the action clearly: 'Rufe ein vollstaendiges Chefkoch-Rezept mit allen Details ab' (retrieve a complete Chefkoch recipe with all details). It specifies the resource (Chefkoch recipe) and lists the included data (ingredients, steps, time, category, rating, nutrition), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mealie_get_recipe (Mealie recipes) and mealie_search_chefkoch (search).

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 implies when to use the tool by stating that the bot uses the data to display the recipe or import it into Mealie. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives such as mealie_get_recipe or mealie_create_recipe_from_url, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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