u1_list_recipes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full responsibility. 'List' and 'built-in' convey a read-only, scope-limited enumeration, but the description does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior or describe what the returned data looks like.

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 eight-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 listing tool, the description is nearly complete: the agent knows what is listed and why. It could be slightly stronger by noting that recipes can later be retrieved via u1_get_recipe or that no arguments are required, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing meaningful is missing here.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('built-in override recipes'), and a scope ('common slicing goals'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like u1_get_recipe, which fetches a single recipe, and u1_compare_recipes, which compares recipes.

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 implies this tool is for discovering available override recipes before selecting one, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over u1_get_recipe or u1_compare_recipes. No exclusions, conditions, or alternative routing are provided.

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