vis_opskrifter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that — it frames the result as the user's own trusted collection rather than an open search. It adds useful behavioral context (personal scope, filterable by tag or free text) but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or what an empty collection returns.

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?

Purpose comes first, then the usage rule, then parameter hints — well front-loaded with no filler sentences. The opening value statement ('retter I kender og stoler på') is slightly decorative but sets the trust framing cheaply.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and the meaning of both parameters. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing; only return-shape and ordering details are absent, which the lack of an output schema makes acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does: `tag` is illustrated with concrete values ('hverdag', 'vegetar') and `soeg` is defined as a word matched against name, ingredients, or note — information not present in the schema at all. It does not state that both are optional and default to null, which the schema does convey.

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 action and resource — the user's own recipe collection — and scopes it ('Jeres egen opskriftssamling'), which separates it from a general recipe search. An agent knows this is a list/read of personal recipes, not an external lookup.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: pick dishes from here for meal plans, before suggesting new ones. That is a clear usage context with a preference rule. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. soeg_opskrifter) or stating exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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