list_device_recipes

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

The description clearly indicates a read-only listing operation with no side effects. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it could additionally state idempotency or that it does not mutate state, but the current description is transparent enough.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place without any padding.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (though not described), and the operation is simple listing, the description is complete. It provides all necessary information for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it fully covers the semantic gap.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'device decomposition recipes', and the scope 'built-in device library'. This specifically distinguishes from sibling tools like 'decompose_device' (which applies a recipe) and 'get_devices' (which lists devices).

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 implies usage as a simple listing operation, but it does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or mention alternatives. For a straightforward tool, this is adequate but not fully instructive.

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