recipe

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

The description discloses one behavioral detail: 'get is summary-first; set includePayload=true to include payload snippets.' This is helpful. However, it does not explain create/update/delete side effects, permissions, or output details. Moreover, it references an 'includePayload' parameter that does not appear in the input schema, which is misleading. Given no annotations and only partial behavioral disclosure, a 2 is warranted.

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 brief, two sentences, and front-loads the operation list. It avoids extraneous content. However, it is so compact that some details are missing, and the mention of 'includePayload' could be better structured. It is concise and efficient, earning a 4.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description must compensate by providing ample context. It lists operations and one get behavior, but it does not explain what a recipe is, what the operations return, how download works, or any security/error considerations. The reference to a non-existent parameter further reduces completeness. This is inadequate for a tool with this little structured metadata, so a 2 is given.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline would be 4, but the description introduces 'includePayload' as a parameter without it being present in the schema. This creates confusion about the actual parameters. The description adds value by explaining a behavior but contradicts the schema, lowering the score to 2.

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 'Recipe ops: list/get/create/update/delete/download', clearly identifying the resource (recipes) and the supported verbs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project or dataset, though it doesn't elaborate on what a recipe is. A score of 4 is appropriate because the core purpose is clear but not maximally specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply lists operations without providing context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. It implies that this is the go-to tool for recipe management, but no explicit guidance is given, earning a 2.

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