Get QuokkaPix Video recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the return content but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the id is invalid, or any side effects. It also doesn't mention authentication or other operational constraints. This is minimal for a simple getter but still leaves ambiguity.

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 leads with the verb and concisely lists the return contents. There is no wasted wording, and it is easily scannable.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter, the description gives a high-level view of what is returned (recipe, browser settings, QA), but there is no output schema and no mention of error handling, response structure, or what 'expected-result QA' entails. Given the absence of structured return info, the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to know exactly how to interpret the response.

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%, with the id parameter fully documented as 'Video recipe id from list_video_recipes.' The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'one official Video recipe', and adds that it includes browser settings and expected-result QA. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_video_recipes (which lists multiple) and validate_video_recipe (which validates) through the singular 'one' and the inclusion of browser settings/QA, though it doesn't explicitly mention the id parameter.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_video_recipes or get_recipe. The description only states what it returns, with no mention of context or exclusions. An agent would have to infer when to call this versus listing or validating.

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