calculate_recipe_scaling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic scaling operation without mentioning error handling, unit conversion, precision, or what happens with fractional servings. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 three sentences, concise, and front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail while covering inputs and outputs, making it easy to scan.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context: it names inputs, output, and points to related tools. It could mention edge cases (e.g., scaling to zero) but is otherwise complete.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the parameters as 'ingredients list, original servings, new servings' without adding new meaning or clarifications 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 the tool scales recipe ingredients up or down by servings count, specifying inputs and output. It mentions related cuisine calculators via list_bundles, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'calculate_recipe_scale' which may have similar functionality.

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 cooking adjustments' and points to list_bundles for related calculators, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond the vague reference to cuisine calculators.

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