Describe Reference Circuit Recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what 'describe' returns, whether the recipe must exist, or what happens for an unknown recipe_id.

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 short sentence with no filler and nothing buried, so it is structurally clean. However, the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency, which caps the score.

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 lookup tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should at least say what is returned and how to source the recipe_id. Neither is present, leaving the definition too thin to guide a correct call.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required recipe_id parameter, and the description does not compensate: it never explains what a recipe_id is, where to obtain one, or its format. The one-parameter description therefore adds no semantic value.

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 verb and resource ('Describe one reference circuit'), but it reads as a restatement of the tool name rather than an explanation of what describing yields. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as list_reference_circuit_recipes or materialize_reference_circuit, so an agent gets only a minimal sense of purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_reference_circuit_recipes (to enumerate recipes) or materialize_recipe (to instantiate one). No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives are mentioned.

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