Get Recipe Revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: immutability of the revision, that engine.state current/stale predicts whether launch will be refused, and that lineage availability is checked live with true/false/null meanings. It is let down only by being heavily oriented toward return-value semantics the output schema already carries.

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 most important statement is front-loaded, and individual sentences do carry information rather than filler. However, the body is a dense, jargon-heavy wall of text with nested parentheticals and quoted example strings that makes it hard to parse for an agent scanning for the operative facts.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, explaining return fields is largely redundant, and the description nonetheless spends most of its length there. It is fairly complete on what the response means but omits the arguments entirely, which is the more important gap for correct invocation.

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% and neither of the two required parameters (recipe_id, number) is mentioned anywhere in the description. 'Read one immutable revision' hints that some identifier designates the revision, but the description adds essentially no meaning about what these arguments are or their format.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one immutable revision with its inspection block.' That clearly distinguishes it from mutating siblings, but the description never differentiates it from close siblings such as get_recipe_revision_authoring or diff_recipe_revisions, leaving the agent to infer which revision-reading tool to pick.

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 implied rather than stated — it is the tool for inspecting a single stored revision. The description does give actionable interpretation guidance ('treat them as stored-but-unused and do not "fix" them by editing unless the gating setting changes too'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives.

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