Discover naming recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool is 'Read-only, free, and needs no arguments,' and describes the output contents. It also clarifies it lists only 'public' recipes, adding a limitation not implied by the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage guidance, the third adds a stability note, and the fourth summarizes traits. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 no-arg list tool with no output schema, the description is thorough. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and its safety profile. No gaps remain for the agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds an explicit 'needs no arguments' statement, which is helpful but redundant. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 states the tool lists 'every public naming strategy Identity Forge can generate from' and specifies the returned fields (id, intent, generation instruction, settings). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_page_recipes by focusing on naming 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?

Explicitly instructs to 'call it before generate_names' to select recipe ids, and notes 'you can skip this once you already know the ones you want.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, referencing the specific sibling tool it supports.

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