recipe_schema

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

With no annotations the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the failure mode ('an unknown name fails loudly') and the return structure. It could go further by stating side-effect/read-only nature and any auth requirements, but the failure semantics are valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose first, then return shape, then parameter semantics. The inline return-type enumeration is dense but earns its place for a tool with no output schema. Slightly long but no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly details the return object ({schema, recipe, doc, inputs:[...], emits}). Combined with the failure-mode note, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though read-only/authorization context is unstated.

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% with one parameter, so the description must compensate and does: '`recipe` names a registered recipe; an unknown name fails loudly' defines the valid domain and error behavior for the sole argument.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (one recipe's declared INPUT SCHEMA) with the exact scope 'its driving parameters with type/unit/default/range'. An agent can distinguish this from recipe_list (enumerates recipes) and recipe (regenerates) without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives implied context via 'This is the contract a parametric regeneration is authored against', which signals it is used to discover inputs before regeneration. However, it never explicitly states when to use this vs recipe/recipe_list/recipe_validate, nor any exclusions.

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