recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the lookup nature, what is returned, the listing behavior, and the import path used by part scripts. It does not explicitly state side-effect/read-only behavior or error handling for unknown names, which keeps it from full transparency.

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 front-loaded with purpose and coverage, then usage semantics, then import guidance. The feature list is long but directly supports discovery and every part of the description has a clear function.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what it contains, how to list versus retrieve, what retrieval returns, and why to use it. No critical calling information is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that name '' lists recipes and that a recipe name or one of its function names retrieves details. That adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string parameter.

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 states a specific resource: tested build123d recipes for common printable features, with printing notes and sources. It names concrete covered features and distinguishes the tool's role as a recipe/example lookup rather than a general guide or part reader.

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 calling behavior: empty name lists recipes; a recipe name or function name returns code, an example, and notes. It also gives a clear when-to-use instruction: use one before improvising the feature, and notes that part scripts import them.

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