Get Recipe Draft Template

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Defaults are not a validated model,' the notion of 'frozen source bytes with verified lineage and an editable data preview,' and an explicit 'Does not create, publish or run anything.' No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the primary purpose first, then optional parameters, then downstream usage, then caveats. Each sentence adds information, though the phrasing 'Get complete shared wizard defaults, hash and envelope schema' is slightly dense and jargon-heavy.

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?

Given the rich annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage details: no side effects, non-validated defaults, source object selection constraints, and the intended downstream call. The main missing piece is family semantics, but the optional parameters and output schema reduce the need for exhaustive return-value documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the two optional source parameters and their mutual exclusion ('uploaded_file_id or pipeline_version_id (never both)'), but it does not explain the 'family' parameter, its enum values (mmm/var), or how it affects the returned defaults. This is a meaningful gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get complete shared wizard defaults, hash and envelope schema.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating 'Does not create, publish or run anything' and by referencing create_recipe_draft, making the tool's role as a template/input source clear.

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?

It provides practical usage guidance, including 'Optionally choose an owned uploaded_file_id or pipeline_version_id (never both)' and 'Copy snapshot into create_recipe_draft and preserve unedited fields.' It clearly implies when this tool fits in the workflow, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like get_recipe_draft or get_recipe_revision_authoring.

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