get_cookbook_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the dual-mode behavior (omitted name returns a catalog including purpose, size, and expected values) and the read-only nature implied by 'fetch'. It stops short of covering failure behavior for an unknown name or any auth/rate considerations, which is a minor gap for a read-only getter.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the invocation pattern, then the rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required from the description; it still summarizes the payload usefully. The one-parameter surface and its two modes are fully covered, leaving only edge behavior (invalid recipe name) unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already documents the single 'name' parameter, including the omit-to-list behavior and examples like 'event' or 'og-standard'. The prose largely restates that, adding only pipeline framing rather than new parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (ready-made layout/recipe) and describes the payload it returns (canvas, slots, values). It also ties itself to the pipeline by saying the result is 'ready for render_template', distinguishing it from siblings like parse_template and render_template.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-call workflow ('call it with no name first' to enumerate, then again with the chosen name) and gives a clear preference rule ('prefer starting from a recipe over composing from nothing') with the reason (encoded spacing/type sizes). Nothing is left to inference.

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