shared_recipes_get_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only hints at read-only via a keyword token and the GET route; it says nothing about pagination, result size, auth requirements, or scope of 'shared' versus personal recipes. For a listing endpoint that is a significant gap.

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 meaningful content is two short lines, but they are buried under an SEO-style keyword block that adds no signal and inflates the definition. The front-loaded phrase 'Get All — Shared: Recipes' restates the title rather than explaining behavior.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and a very crowded sibling namespace all demand more from the description. It supplies neither output expectations (pagination, fields) nor the routing logic needed to pick this tool over the numerous alternatives.

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 0% and the single parameter (recipe_id, uuid4) is undocumented in both schema and description. It is also counterintuitive for a 'get all' tool, and the description does nothing to explain whether it filters or is ignored. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

It does state a verb and resource ('List recipes' in the 'Shared: Recipes' scope) plus the raw endpoint, so the basic purpose is inferable. But it offers no differentiation from the many near-identical siblings (recipe_crud_get_all, explore_recipes_get_all, shared_recipes_get_one, get_recipe), and the keyword list is noise rather than clarification.

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 statement of when to use this versus the other list-style recipe tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The keyword dump ('list, get, search, find, browse, fetch, read') actively blurs the boundary with search/find siblings rather than guiding selection.

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