Recipe Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a structured object with specific fields, names the 'emits' field, and discloses that an unknown recipe name fails loudly. This goes beyond the annotations and schema.

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?

Three sentences, all dense with information: what it returns, the exact output shape, the failure mode, and the purpose. No filler, no repetition of the schema. The key behavioral facts are front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a rich output description, this is nearly complete. The output schema is absent, but the description enumerates the return fields. The only gap is not telling the agent how to discover valid recipe names (e.g., via recipe_list), which would make it fully self-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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that 'recipe' names a registered recipe, that an unknown name fails loudly, and that the returned schema is the contract for parametric regeneration. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property. However, it doesn't enumerate possible recipe names or point to recipe_list for discovery, so it's not a 5.

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 specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('one recipe's declared INPUT SCHEMA'), and precisely what the output contains. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like recipe_list, recipe_validate, and recipe by naming the contract it returns. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the driving parameters/contract for a parametric regeneration. It names the recipe parameter and notes that an unknown name fails loudly. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like recipe_validate or recipe_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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