get_recipe_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the response includes a MANDATORY directive field that must be followed, and that all tools in the content must be executed before proceeding. This goes beyond a simple read operation and prepares the agent for side effects (tool invocations), which is valuable behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections and bullet points, front-loading the mandatory directive and step execution requirements. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value, such as the return fields and the warning against skipping steps. Minor redundancy in repeating 'do not skip steps' and 'do not combine steps' could be trimmed.

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 an output schema exists (though not shown fully), the description doesn't need to detail return types, and it does list the expected fields. It covers key behaviors (mandatory directive, sequential execution) and handles the 0% schema coverage for parameters. It could mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., out-of-range step), but overall it is sufficient for correct usage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'name' is the recipe name and 'step' is a 1-based step number, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't provide details on valid recipe names or step bounds beyond the example, so it partially compensates but not fully.

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 it retrieves a single step from a recipe for sequential execution, specifying the resource (recipe step) and the action. It also distinguishes itself from get_recipe (which likely retrieves the whole recipe) and list_recipes, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to execute all tools in the step content, not skip or combine steps, and to follow the directive field. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when you need the entire recipe). The absence of explicit exclusions is a minor gap.

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