Create Parser Ingredient

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Parse Ingredient' only states the basic action; it does not disclose whether this creates a persistent resource, whether selecting 'openai' sends data externally, what side effects occur, or what the response contains.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than good conciseness. It consists of only two words and omits essential context, so it does not earn its place as a sufficient tool description.

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 values need not be described, but the tool still requires guidance on parser selection, language handling, and side effects. The two-word description leaves too much to inference for a tool with three parameters and no annotations.

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. It only hints that 'ingredient' is the text being parsed, but it does not explain the meaning of 'parser' values like 'nlp', 'brute', and 'openai', nor does it clarify 'accept-language'. The schema shows enum values but not their semantics.

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 'Parse Ingredient' states a clear action (parse) and object (ingredient), so an agent can tell the basic intent. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'create_parser_ingredients', which appears to serve the same purpose in plural form.

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, no mention of when to choose this over 'create_parser_ingredients', and no context about which parser value fits which scenario. The description simply states the action without any usage conditions.

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