get_workflow_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by enumerating accepted scenario values and specifying the behavior when scenario is None (list all). This adds meaningful context about input handling and output scope, though it doesn't detail the exact recipe format or error handling.

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 compact and well-structured: a single sentence states the primary purpose, followed by an Args section that clearly documents the parameter and its options. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately covers its core behavior. It explains what the tool returns and how to use the parameter, but could be slightly more complete by specifying the recipe's structure (e.g., whether it includes arguments or tool names only). Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema provides no description for the 'scenario' parameter (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by enumerating the valid string values and explaining the None default behavior. This is essential semantic meaning that the schema alone does not convey.

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 function: 'Return an ordered, tool-by-tool recipe for a common RASPA2 scenario.' It uses a specific verb ('Return'), identifies the resource ('recipe'), and differentiates from siblings like get_simulation_template by emphasizing the sequential, tool-by-tool nature.

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 when to use the tool by listing valid scenarios (custom_mof_gcmc, henry_widom, diffusion_md) and noting that None lists all available scenarios. It provides clear context for usage but stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, which would push it to a 5.

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