bpb_get_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned data categories and a useful reliability caveat about full traversal of shop recipes, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or what happens with invalid item_id values.

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 dense but front-loaded: it first states the core purpose, then enumerates returned fields, then explains the item_id versus full-query mode. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the field list is somewhat packed into one sentence.

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?

With one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what is read, what fields are returned, when to use item_id, and a stability caveat. It stops short of describing invalid-id behavior or exact response structure, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that omitting item_id queries all backpack/storage items while passing it can target shop item ids, and by warning against full traversal for shop recipes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads crafting recipes and lists the exact recipe-related fields returned (base/result/ingredients/all_ingredients/catalyst, as_ingredient, gated_items). It also scopes the full query to backpack/storage items and distinguishes the item_id single-item mode, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as bpb_get_backpack.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: omit item_id for full backpack/storage lookups, pass item_id for shop items. It also explains why shop items must be queried individually (full traversal of individual shop recipes is unstable). It does not mention named alternative tools or broader exclusions.

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