get_fsm_recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely non-redundant fact: the result is structural metadata rather than runnable code, which informs interpretation. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape, so it exceeds the annotation baseline only modestly.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its scope front-loaded and the metadata caveat immediately after. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

For a read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential floor. However, with 8 parameters and four separate string fields ('id', 'name', 'recipe', 'componentId') all described as recipe identifier aliases, a sentence clarifying which to supply and how pagination works would meaningfully reduce miscalls.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description re-lists the section values that the schema enum already defines and adds no format or interaction detail (e.g., how `recipe`, `id`, `name`, and `componentId` alias one another). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates the exact resource slice ("finite FSM states, events, guards, actions, or transitions"), which maps directly to the `section` enum. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling read tools (get_component_details, get_macro_block, get_design_rules) by naming when this one applies instead.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition, and no alternative named. The second sentence ("Recipes are structural metadata, not executable runtime code") is a useful scoping caveat but is not routing guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the FSM-metadata reader.

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