Recipe List

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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes built-in recipes, user recipes, and recipes that failed to load, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the routing guidance. Every clause adds information; nothing is wasted.

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 zero-argument list tool with an output schema and annotations that cover safety, the description provides everything an agent needs: what it lists, what the entries contain, when to call it, and which sibling to use instead for ad-hoc sequences.

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?

This tool takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain, and the baseline score for zero parameters is 4. The description does not misrepresent any arguments.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (recipes that recipe_run can execute), and it enumerates the returned fields: name, description, and parameters. It also scopes the list to built-in recipes, user recipes, and recipes that failed to load, which lets an agent distinguish it from recipe_run and batch_run.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: call this before recipe_run, and use batch_run instead for an ad-hoc sequence. That names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

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