Sheepit quickstart — concrete recipe for a goal

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the tool returns a recipe but does not mention any behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't confirm safety.

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 clearly stating the return value and usage context. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no fluff, every word earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain the format of the returned recipe (e.g., plain text, JSON, list of tool calls). Also, it omits 4 recipe options from the schema description, leaving gaps for the 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 claimed 100%, but the parameter description for 'recipe' only lists 5 out of 9 enum values, potentially misleading the agent about available options. The language parameter description adds value by noting Spanish use.

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 returns a step-by-step recipe with exact tool calls for a specific goal. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are individual actions, making it clear that this is a meta-tool for orchestration.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user has a clear intent' and provides examples like 'send a marketing email' and language option. Does not specify when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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