recipe_read

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It states 'Read a recipe JSON file' implying read-only, but lacks details on error conditions, idempotency, side effects, or required permissions. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 a single sentence front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information; every word adds value. Ideal conciseness.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters and an output schema; the description tells purpose and a scope constraint. It omits context like typical usage, prerequisites, or what a recipe JSON file is. Adequate for a low-complexity tool but could be more complete.

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 meaning for the 2 parameters. It adds a constraint on 'scope' (must be 'workspace' or 'app_data'), but provides no information on 'path' format or allowed values. Partial compensation for schema gaps.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'recipe JSON file', indicating a retrieval operation. It differentiates from sibling tools like recipe_write or recipe_mutate, though it does not explicitly exclude all siblings.

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 provides only a constraint on the 'scope' parameter ('must be 'workspace' or 'app_data'') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recipe_normalize or archetype_list. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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