get_recipe_by_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a recipe but doesn't describe whether it's a read-only operation, what happens if the index is invalid (e.g., error handling), or any rate limits or permissions required. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by including key details upfront, but it earns high marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and poor parameter documentation, it lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use, such as error handling or behavioral traits, making it only adequate.

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 for the undocumented parameter. It mentions 'by index' which adds some meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Index' title, but it doesn't explain what the index represents (e.g., zero-based, range, source) or provide context like valid values or examples, leaving the parameter poorly defined.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Get a recipe by index from the list') with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('recipe'), but it's vague about what 'the list' refers to and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recipes' or 'search_mathem_ingredients'. It's adequate but lacks specificity about scope or context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_recipes' or 'search_mathem_ingredients'. The description implies usage by index but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing to know the index from another operation) or exclusions, leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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