get_html_recipes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description goes beyond that by disclosing that hand-written markup breaks numbering and that the tool covers macro-id and metadata-scope caveats. While it doesn't elaborate on the caveats, it adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: the second explains why templates are mandatory, and the third mentions additional caveats. No filler or 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?

For a read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and important caveats. It is sufficient for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect, with output shape presumably in the schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to address. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to explain parameters.

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 fetches the required HTML templates for specific elements (tables, captions, links, widgets) used with update_work_items/update_document. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'HTML templates' are specific, and the mention of these elements distinguishes it from siblings like get_sql_query_recipes.

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 states when to use the tool: any new table, numbered caption, link, or widget must be adapted from these templates. It also warns against the alternative (plain hand-written markup) by explaining it renders unstyled and breaks numbering, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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