calculate_recipe_scale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the scaling action but is misleading: it says 'Inputs: ingredients with quantities' (plural) while the schema only accepts a single amount, implying the tool might handle multiple ingredients in one call - which it does not. It also fails to disclose any behavioral traits like handling of fractions, rounding, or safety aspects.

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 short (two sentences plus a reference) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence 'Use for adjusting recipes' is slightly redundant with the first. Overall, it is concise and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 three simple numeric parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the scaling formula (simple ratio), mention decimal handling, or clarify whether the amount is per serving or total. It points to list_bundles for related tools but does not compare with the sibling 'calculate_recipe_scaling', leaving gaps for proper usage.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds that it 'Returns adjusted quantities', which is not in the schema. However, it also mentions 'ingredients with quantities' (plural), which contradicts the single-amount parameter, reducing clarity. Overall, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 scales recipe quantities to a new servings count. It specifies the action (scale) and resource (recipe quantities), and distinguishes from related tools by referencing list_bundles for cuisine calculators. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'calculate_recipe_scaling', which might cause confusion.

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 advises 'Use for adjusting recipes' and points to list_bundles for related calculators, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool and does not compare to similar siblings like 'calculate_recipe_scaling'.

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