plan_recipe_ingredients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states that it parses and lists ingredients, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, permissions, or whether it performs any network requests when given a URL. The phrase 'will be searched for' implies planning rather than execution, which is helpful but minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then specifying the parameter. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, though the 'Args:' formatting is somewhat boilerplate.

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 simplicity, one parameter, and an existing output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It could be improved by relating the tool to sibling workflow tools, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 must compensate for the single parameter. It does so by explaining that recipe_text accepts either raw recipe text with an ingredients list or a URL to a recipe page. This adds meaningful accepted-format semantics beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 and resource: 'Parse a recipe and list the ingredients that will be searched for.' This clearly conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as compare_recipe or add_recipe_to_cart, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_recipe_to_cart or compare_recipe. The implied usage is to parse a recipe before searching, but no context, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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