get_recipe_prompt

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

Despite having no annotations, the description clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('returns the workflow prompt'), which is the primary behavioral trait. No side effects or hidden behaviors are implied. For a simple getter with zero parameters, this level of disclosure is sufficient.

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, succinct sentence in German that immediately states the tool's function. It contains no fluff or redundancy, and it front-loads the key information in a direct and efficient manner.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It names the exact output ('workflow prompt for recipe extraction from PDFs'), which suffices given the low complexity. It could have added a hint about the prompt's format or how to use it, but the output schema presumably covers that, so no significant gap exists.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter details, as there are none to document. It correctly implies that the tool takes no input and directly returns the workflow prompt.

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 'Gibt zurück' (returns) and the resource 'Workflow-Prompt für Rezept-Extraktion aus PDFs' (workflow prompt for recipe extraction from PDFs), making its purpose unambiguous. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_server_version or build_recipe_html_tool, all of which serve different functions.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Since there are sibling tools with overlapping domains (e.g., build_recipe_html_tool), such guidance would be valuable.

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