List page recipes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral transparency. It discloses return format ('judgment summaries'), the absence of an export payload, the distinction between legacy-sequence and communication-idea records, and the scope boundary ('covers structure and argument, not visuals'). It also explicitly notes 'Read-only and free,' which is essential behavioral context.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage trigger, alternative, return behavior, model field nuance, and scope limitation. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and flows logically without fluff.

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 (list/read) but the domain has nuance. The description covers return format, the model field meaning, and what the tool does not cover (visuals). With no output schema, this level of description is ample for an agent to understand what to expect and how to proceed.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on the returned records' model field. That is fine but not additive to parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Browse') and a clear resource ('page recipes'), then explains what page recipes are and what they do. It also distinguishes this tool from its sibling get_page_recipe by framing list_page_recipes as the browsing step and get_page_recipe as the follow-up. This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use one when you know what a page must achieve but not how to sequence it.' It also names the alternative: 'call get_page_recipe for the implementable version.' It adds a caution to read the model field before following a record, which is actionable guidance.

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