proofmill_recipe_schema

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

The word 'Return' implies a non-mutating metadata retrieval, which is the core behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not explain 'bounded' or disclose edge cases, auth requirements, or failure behavior. For a low-risk schema-retrieval tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with a clear verb-first structure and no filler. Every word earns its place, and the operation list is compactly presented.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description tells the agent what to call and what broad content to expect. It could clarify whether the return is a JSON Schema object and what 'bounded' means, but nothing essential is missing given the tool's simplicit.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline of 4 applies. The operation names in the description describe the content of the returned schema rather than parameters, so no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 direct action ('Return') and a specific resource ('the bounded recipe schema'), and narrows scope to four operation types. It is also distinguishable from siblings by focusing on a schema rather than profile/validate/compare/explain, though 'bounded' is left undefined.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or exclusion is provided, but the operation list implies it is the tool for retrieving schema details. Siblings are clearly different actions, so a misfire is less likely; however, there is no guidance about when this schema lookup is appropriate relative to the other tools.

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