Recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is free. The description still earns credit by disclosing data-scope facts the annotations cannot: plugin-registered recipes are included, and each ingredient expands into the set of items that satisfy it. It says nothing about behavior for unknown items or about pagination defaults.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the item/uses distinction before the recipe-type enumeration. The middle clause enumerating five cooking stations is slightly breathy, but every element maps to real scope information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it names the recipe categories, notes that grids come with their shape, that cooking includes time and experience, and that ingredients list the items that fit. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with examples (`minecraft:torch`, `minecraft:coal`) and limit semantics ('0 answers only the total'). The description reinforces the conceptual split between `item` and `uses` but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail for `limit`/`cursor` beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (recipes) and states the two query directions precisely: how to make an item (`item`) or what an item is good for (`uses`). It enumerates the covered recipe types (crafting, furnace, smoker, blast furnace, campfire, stonecutting, smithing), which makes the scope unambiguous. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'returns' and never differentiates itself from siblings by name, but no sibling covers recipes at all.

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 tells the agent which parameter to pick for which goal — 'How to make an item (`item`)' vs 'what an item is good for (`uses`)' — and that both can be combined. That covers the main decision an agent faces with this tool. It gives no exclusions, no 'when not to use', and no guidance on paging versus counting.

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