cyberchef_recipe_test

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate those. The description adds the basic behavior that the tool runs a test with sample inputs, which is already clear from the name and schema. It does not disclose anything beyond that, such as what 'testing' does differently from executing, what the result payload contains, or side effects like caching. That is acceptable given annotations but not richly transparent.

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 short sentence: 'Test a recipe with sample inputs.' There is no wasted wording, and the core action and object are front-loaded. It could earn a 5 if it also gave a one-line usage hint, but as written it is concise and structured enough for quick parsing.

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, idempotent tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks contextual completeness in one important respect: given sibling names like cyberchef_recipe_validate, cyberchef_bake, and cyberchef_recipe_execute, an agent might not understand what 'test' uniquely offers. The description does not clarify the expected outcome of a test or how it differs from validation/execution, so the tool's role in the larger toolkit is not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents recipe and testInputs as an object containing a name and operations array and an array of test values. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond 'sample inputs' as the purpose of testInputs. It does not explain the nested operation structure, the meaning of args, or constraints on test inputs, but the schema already carries that burden. 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?

The description 'Test a recipe with sample inputs' states a specific verb ('test') and resource ('recipe'), and the parameter names (recipe, testInputs) reinforce that this tool validates a recipe against sample inputs. While it is reasonably clear, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like cyberchef_validate or cyberchef_bake, so it gets a 4 rather than 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?

The description implies usage: use this tool when you have a recipe and sample inputs and want to test whether the recipe produces expected results. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over cyberchef_recipe_validate (validation of recipe structure) or cyberchef_bake (executing a recipe against data). It gives no 'use X instead' guidance, so it is adequate but lacks explicit routing.

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