analyze_recipe

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the returned structural information (tables, fields, plugins, options, etc.), going beyond the annotations.

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 concise at 5 sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a bullet-like list of returned information. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more compact.

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's moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the output structure well but lacks parameter semantics, making it incomplete for a fully informed call.

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%, yet the description does not explain the meaning or usage of the two parameters (recipe_path and recipe_text) beyond implying one provides a recipe. No guidance on mutual exclusivity or defaults is given.

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 the tool parses and analyzes a Snowfakery recipe structure and lists specific return information (tables, fields, plugins, options, random references, version). It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_recipe and validate_recipe.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'before running to understand recipe structure,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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