Get recipe

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 lists content areas (capabilities, flow, errors, webhooks) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response shape looks like, what errors might occur, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the listed topics.

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, compact sentence with no filler, and the concept of a 'full integration pattern' is front-loaded. However, the sentence is under-specified despite its brevity, and the trailing list of components reads more like content tags than structured guidance. It is concise but not fully effective.

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?

The tool has one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description hints at a rich response (capabilities, flow, errors, webhooks, etc.) but does not explain the input identifier, return format, or error handling. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly with the information provided.

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?

The schema has one parameter, recipeId, with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention recipeId at all, so an agent cannot determine what value to pass (e.g., an ID, a slug, a path) or how it affects the returned integration pattern. The description completely fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 identifies the tool as delivering 'a full integration pattern' and lists its components, which gives a general sense of what is returned. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns,' and the meaning of 'recipe' is only inferred from the tool name. It is not a tautology, but the purpose is somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_capability, get_operation, or get_webhook_contract. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or expected usage scenarios, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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