baron_recipe_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses deterministic execution, rule-enforced step order, automatic error on missing inputs, dual return format (JSON context + optional text block), and explains the text block's purpose ('reports what it could not verify'). No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences covering action, behavior, input requirements, return format, and usage preference. It is concise and front-loaded, though the dense paragraph could benefit from slight structural separation (e.g., breaking out return format). No redundant content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (recipe execution, deterministic workflow, two-part return) and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what it does, how to use it, what to expect, and what the text block means. It does not mention error handling for missing recipes or non-existent inputs, but that is implied by the deterministic nature.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that required inputs come from baron_recipe_list and that missing them causes errors rather than prompting. This context helps the agent prepare inputs correctly.

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 'Run a named recipe end-to-end as ONE deterministic, rule-enforced workflow' – a clear verb+resource pairing. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by advising 'Prefer this over composing the individual issue/scm/ci tools yourself for a packaged workflow.'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Prefer this over composing...'), instructs to supply inputs from baron_recipe_list, warns that missing required inputs error rather than prompt, and tells the agent to read the second text block for verification messages. This fully covers selection and invocation context.

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