explain_operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes further: it states 'Read-only' explicitly, describes support for preset names, and explains the structured error response for unknown names listing all valid operations. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, covering error handling and preset behavior.

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 approximately 80 words, composed of three sentences. It front-loads the main purpose ('Full reference for one recipe operation'), then details content, presets, and errors. Reasonably concise and logically structured, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 reference tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers return content (parameters, examples, gotchas), preset handling, and error behavior (unknown names return a structured error with valid operations). All essential information for correct invocation is present.

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?

The only parameter, 'operation', has a schema description explaining it as the op name to write in the format {"op": "..."}. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself; it focuses on the return value. Baseline of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Full reference for one recipe operation' with detailed content (parameters, examples, gotchas). It also covers preset handling and error behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_operations. The verb 'explain' and resource 'operation' are specific and unambiguous.

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 when detailed information about a specific operation is needed, contrasting with listing all operations. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the context 'one recipe operation' and the error fallback listing all valid operations provide clear guidance. No explicit exclusions, but sufficient context.

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