Validate TD Recipe

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

The description states 'Read-only recipe compatibility check,' which matches the annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false). It additionally discloses the tool's legacy status and pending removal, adding useful context beyond what annotations provide.

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 critical legacy warning and then stating the purpose concisely. Every word earns its place.

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 that the tool is legacy and being replaced, the description covers the essential points. It might benefit from a brief note on what 'recipe compatibility check' means, but with the output schema available, this is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool is a read-only recipe compatibility check and explicitly distinguishes it from the preferred td_brain_plan tool, calling out its legacy status and upcoming removal.

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 tells the agent to prefer td_brain_plan for new requests, which is a clear usage guideline. It also indicates the tool is legacy, but does not elaborate on exact conditions or alternatives beyond that.

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