Get Recipe Revision Authoring

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses a specific error contract (404 for api_mmm/model_snapshot/legacy), the exact fallback semantics when dataset bytes no longer hash to the fitted origin (source is null, source_available false, reason), and the reassuring guarantee that 'the published revision stays unchanged' and it 'does not create or fit anything'.

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?

Four dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return semantics, the dataset-hash caveat, and downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place, though it runs long enough that the parameter meaning never gets a sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return fields — yet it explains the non-obvious one (source_available / source_unavailable_reason) rather than just listing names. Combined with the error and downstream-usage context, the definition is complete except for the unexplained 'number' parameter.

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 the description adds no meaning for either parameter. 'recipe_id' is self-evident from the name, but 'number' is ambiguous (revision number vs ordinal) and is never explained; the description only mentions revision_id as a return field, not as input semantics. With 0% coverage the description should have compensated and does not.

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 and resource ('Read the authoring snapshot behind a published revision') and immediately narrows scope by enumerating which revision kinds (authoring_draft, wizard, base_model) carry a snapshot and which (api_mmm, model_snapshot, legacy) do not. This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling get_recipe_revision and get_recipe_draft.

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 explicit conditions for success (three revision kinds) and failure (404 for the others), and routes the agent onward to create_recipe_draft with the correct argument ('target for an in-place edit, source_revision_id for a branch'). It does not explicitly compare against the sibling get_recipe_revision, so a small inference remains, but the when-to-use context is otherwise clear.

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