get_recipes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'Get' (implying read-only), but fails to clarify what 'available' means (e.g., based on player knowledge, unlocked recipes), whether any prerequisites exist, or what happens when the item has no recipes. No return format or error behavior is mentioned.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get available crafting recipes') and clearly states the input. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the description gives a basic understanding of its purpose, but with no output schema, it does not explain what the returned recipes contain (e.g., ingredients, workbench type). The vagueness of 'available' leaves the exact response structure unclear, making it minimally adequate.

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% for the single parameter 'itemName', and its description ('Name of the item to get recipes for') is fully self-explanatory. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly and specifically states the tool's function: retrieving available crafting recipes for a given item. It uses a distinct verb ('Get') and resource ('available crafting recipes'), and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'craft_item' which performs the actual crafting action.

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?

The description implicitly conveys when to use the tool (when you need crafting recipes for an item), but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or situations where it should not be used. It does not mention relationships to siblings like 'craft_item' or 'get_inventory'.

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