Get Custom Recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the output is edit-ready for update_custom_recipe and machine settings/ingredient links are returned as structured steps rather than raw values. It says nothing about behavior on an invalid or non-existent recipe_id, limiting the value added.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the resource and output format come first, the workflow instruction second, and the structured-step caveat last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, and it correctly focuses on the read-then-edit workflow that motivates the tool. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only failure behavior for an unknown ID is unaddressed.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('The custom recipe ID returned by list_custom_recipes'), so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the user-owned scope of the recipe but adds no ID format, provenance, or error semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one of the user's custom recipes') and pins the shape of the result ('as JSON, in the format expected by update_custom_recipe'). It implicitly separates itself from list_custom_recipes (single item by ID) and from get_recipe_details (custom, not catalog, recipes), though it never names the non-custom alternative explicitly.

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?

'Use it as the starting point before editing' gives a clear, actionable when-to-use rule tied to the edit workflow. It does not state when not to use it or name a sibling to prefer for read-only inspection (e.g., get_recipe_details), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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