asset_recipe_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with 'immutable' (snapshots cannot be altered) and the guarantee that the active snapshot is identified, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when an asset has no recipe snapshots, leaving error behavior undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action leads and the secondary outcome follows. Every clause contributes information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 one-parameter read-only tool this is close to adequate, and the mention of identifying the active snapshot partly covers the return semantics in the absence of an output schema. However, the shape of the returned snapshots and the behavior for assets with no recipes remain unspecified.

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?

There is only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'For one asset' implies assetId selects a single asset and that the result is scoped to exactly that asset, which is useful, but it adds no detail on format (ID type, whether it accepts version identifiers) beyond the bare schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('immutable generation recipe snapshots for one asset'), plus a secondary outcome ('identify the currently active snapshot'). That is enough for an agent to separate it from generation_lineage or asset_version_history, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for inspecting recipe history of an already-known asset, and the singular 'one asset' plus required assetId signals it is not a search or listing tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over asset_version_history or generation_lineage, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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