get_prompt_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly describes the returned contents and even notes the link is pre-filled, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization needs, error behavior, or other operational traits beyond the basic read operation implied by 'Get'.

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 that states the operation first and then uses a colon-delimited list to pack the return details efficiently. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 get-by-identifier tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main thing an agent needs to know: what the response will contain. It does not explain how slug maps to a recipe or handle error cases, but the low complexity keeps the missing detail relatively minor.

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 should compensate by explaining the slug parameter, but it never mentions slug or how the recipe is identified. The only guidance comes from the property name itself and minLength=1, so the description adds no parameter-specific semantic value.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('prompt recipe') and enumerates what 'in full' includes: prompt text, settings, credits, and a pre-filled generator link. It is distinguishable from the sibling list_prompt_recipes by the 'one' vs list contrast, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 the tool is for retrieving one complete recipe, but it never says when to prefer it over list_prompt_recipes or get_scene_recipe, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No alternative routing guidance is provided.

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