Get Media Recipes By Recipe Assets By File Name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns a recipe asset,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether the response is a binary file, a URL, metadata, or how errors are handled. For a media retrieval tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified to the point of being nearly uninformative, so it is not an appropriately sized description for a tool with two required parameters and no other supporting documentation.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a recipe asset is and what invoking the tool returns. It does neither, leaving the agent to rely on inference from the tool name. The description is not complete enough for confident selection and 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% and the description does not mention recipe_id or file_name at all. The schema provides only names and types, so the agent receives no explanation of what these parameters mean or how to format file_name. The description adds no semantic value for 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 states a verb and a resource ('Returns a recipe asset'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, 'recipe asset' is undefined and the description provides no detail to distinguish this from sibling tools like get_media_recipes_by_recipe_images_by_file_name. The purpose is only vaguely clear.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention siblings, conditions, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and context.

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