get_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that include_code=true returns the parsed code tree + config, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not note error behavior, permissions, or what the default response is when include_code is false or omitted.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The include_code clarification adds value without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool, the description covers the primary action and key optional behavior. However, it lacks explanation of the default return shape and error conditions, which would be important since there's no output schema to clarify responses.

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 add parameter meaning. It documents the effect of include_code=true, but not the false case or recipe_id semantics. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description only partially compensates.

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 'Fetch a recipe' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_recipes (which lists) and get_recipe_steps (which retrieves steps), and the include_code behavior further differentiates it as the source of truth for editing.

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 single recipe and include_code=true for accessing the code tree, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_recipes for summaries or get_recipe_steps for steps-only. No exclusion criteria are given.

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