parse_recipe_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it parses a single file, returns raw assignments, and does not evaluate variables. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or output format, which are important for a parsing tool.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a critical behavioral note ('never evaluates variables'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (parsing with specific constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and a key limitation, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 the schema already documents the 'file_path' parameter fully. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as file format constraints or examples, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('parse'), the resource ('.bb or .bbappend file'), and the output ('all raw variable assignments'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_recipe_files' (which finds files) and 'get_recipe_var_raw' (which gets a specific variable). It explicitly notes it 'never evaluates variables,' which further clarifies its scope.

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 usage by specifying the file types (.bb or .bbappend) and the output (raw variable assignments), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_recipe_var_raw' or 'scan_layer_recipe_files.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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