get_recipe_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the scanning and resolution behavior, but lacks information on whether the tool is read-only, authentication needs, or potential side effects. Additional context like 'read-only' or 'no modifications' would improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence states action and method, second adds key clarification. Information is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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 no output schema and 4 optional parameters, the description is mostly complete for a mapping tool. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., returns a list of mappings or a JSON structure), which would enhance completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., clarifying default values or usage constraints for each parameter).

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 uses a specific verb 'Map' and resources 'recommendation recipes to campaigns', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_campaigns or get_campaign. It also explains the method 'by scanning experience configuration' and the unique function of resolving the API inUse flag.

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 the tool is used to reconcile API flags with actual campaign linkages, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings like list_campaigns or get_campaign. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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