Review Recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks and returns a scorecard, suggesting a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether it requires specific permissions, data sources, or any limitations (e.g., only predefined styles).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and details. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 schema covers all parameters and the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains input and output format. It could optionally mention the scorecard's structure but is complete enough for a review tool.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description lists the parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it reviews a beer recipe against BJCP style guidelines, specifying the exact metrics (OG, FG, IBU, SRM, ABV) and the output (scorecard). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_styles or calculate_ibu.

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 using this tool when you have a recipe and want to evaluate it against a style. It lists the checks performed and the result. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, but the context among siblings provides adequate clarity.

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