Get Recipe Revision

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'immutable' property, which informs the agent that the returned data is stable and won't change, providing useful context beyond the structured hints. No contradiction 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It conveys the essential purpose in six words, making it exceptionally concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema exists to document return values, while annotations cover behavioral safety. However, the description omits parameter explanations, which is a notable gap given the 0% schema coverage. Despite the self-explanatory parameter names, the description alone is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 for parameter meaning. However, the description does not explain that recipe_id identifies the recipe and number is the revision number. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no explicit clarification, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names alone.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('one exact immutable recipe revision'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_recipe_draft and list_recipe_drafts by emphasizing 'exact' and 'immutable', making it unambiguous which operation is intended.

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 usage for retrieving a specific, immutable revision, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recipe_draft or list_recipe_drafts. The context is clear but not contrasted with exclusions, so it relies on inference rather than explicit guidance.

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