레시피 목록

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the catalog is curated and that entries are template+component bundles, but says nothing about ordering, size, or return shape. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 reflects modest added value.

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 with zero padding. The identity of the resource is front-loaded and the actionable follow-up is placed second, which is the right priority order.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description must carry the burden of conveying what come back — it does so at a high level by defining recipes as template+component bundles. It could say more about the fields of each entry, but for a no-arg listing tool this is complete enough.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description misrepresents or omits parameters.

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 ('curated recipes list') and, crucially, defines what a recipe is — a template+component bundle — which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling list_egovframe_templates and list_egovframe_components. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 a clear next-step routing hint: recipes can be assembled in one shot with apply_egovframe_recipe, establishing the list→apply workflow. It does not state when to prefer this list over list_egovframe_templates or list_egovframe_components, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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