design_get_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the payload shape (layers, palette, agent guidance), which is the main trait an agent needs, and "Get" implies a safe read. It says nothing about permissions, behavior on an unknown ID, or size/cost of the response for what appears to be a large record.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the included payload spelled out and zero filler. Nothing to cut.

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 lookup with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient, and listing the returned sections partly compensates for the absent output schema. However, given a sibling set containing design_list_recipes, design_get_style, design_get_style_palette and design_get_style_timeline, the description should state how this differs from those partial-read tools; that omission is the real gap.

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 100% and the schema already supplies format and concrete examples ("impressionism-landscape, van-gogh-starry-night"). The description adds nothing beyond "specific style recipe," so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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?

Specific verb ("Get") plus specific resource ("style recipe") with an enumeration of what the detail includes: layers, palette, agent guidance. An agent can tell this is the full-record read rather than a summary, but the description never names design_list_recipes, design_get_style, or design_get_style_palette, which are the near-identical siblings an agent must choose between.

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?

"for a specific style recipe" only implies that an ID is required; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over design_list_recipes (enumerate) or design_get_style_palette / design_get_style_timeline (partial reads). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing logic — the agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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