describe_pipeline_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read-only operation ('Retrieve'), which is consistent with the lack of destructive hints, but it doesn't disclose any side effects (e.g., whether it runs an analysis or just returns stored config), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the recipe doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It includes a brief Args and Returns section for structure, with no filler or redundant phrasing. It could be slightly more compact, but it's efficient and well-organized.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete. It explains what it returns (JSON string with recipe specification and step definitions) and provides examples. However, given the lack of annotations, it would benefit from clarifying whether it requires any sampling or validation and what the error behavior is. Since the output schema exists, return value details are partially covered, but the description's brief mention of return is still helpful. Overall, adequate but missing a bit of behavioral context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'recipe_name' and provides two concrete examples, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property name. However, it doesn't explain the format (e.g., must match a recipe from 'list_pipeline_recipes'), which would help, so it partially compensates but is not fully sufficient.

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 retrieves detailed configuration, parameters, and step sequence for a pipeline recipe, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It is distinct from siblings like 'list_pipeline_recipes' (which likely lists recipes) and 'run_pipeline' (which executes), but it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives, so it's not a perfect 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 by stating it retrieves configuration and parameters, which is appropriate when you need details of a specific recipe. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over 'list_pipeline_recipes' (e.g., when you need the full recipe specification, not just a list) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so it's clear but not explicit.

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