Fetch a verified cint 0.2.0 code recipe and its digest by name or keyword, with optional explanation.
Fetch a verified cint 0.2.0 code recipe (fixed-point-trig, fixed-point-ln-sqrt, wide-i1024-scaling, svg-generator, fnv1a-digest, money-ledger, kernel-double-buffer) with digest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Recipe name or keyword (e.g. 'fixed-point-trig', 'money-ledger') | |
| verbose | No | If true, include the recipe's explanation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation and 'verified ... with digest' adds useful integrity context, but there is nothing about what happens with an unknown recipe name, caching/versioning behavior, or response shape.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the identifier list is tucked into parentheses so it does not obscure the main action.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should say what a caller receives; 'with digest' hints at content plus an integrity hash but does not describe format or content of the recipe body. For a simple two-parameter fetch this is adequate but incomplete.
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%, so the baseline is 3; however, the description enumerates all seven concrete recipe names, which is genuinely more actionable than the schema's two examples. It says nothing about the 'verbose' flag's effect on output size, keeping it out of 5 territory.
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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('verified cint 0.2.0 code recipe') and enumerates the seven valid recipe identifiers, which clearly separates it from doc-oriented siblings like cint_get_doc and cint_search_docs. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus cint_get_doc, cint_search_docs, or cint_list_curriculum, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether a recipe must be discovered first). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the value list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.