gimp_list_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that entries are 'tested' and 'multi-step' and that parameter information is included, which is meaningful context. The read-only nature is strongly implied by 'List', and there are no hidden side effects described or contradicted.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds information: 'tested', 'multi-step', 'recipes', and 'parameters' all carry content.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema available, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It identifies exactly what will be listed and lets the output schema handle return-value details.

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 takes zero input parameters, so the description has no input parameter burden. Mentioning that recipes have parameters refers to the output content, and with no input schema to document this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('tested multi-step recipes') plus what is returned ('their parameters'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like gimp_run_recipe or gimp_batch_recipe, which execute recipes instead of enumerating them.

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 tool's listing purpose implies it can be used to discover available recipes and their parameters before running them, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer it over gimp_run_recipe, gimp_batch_recipe, or other list tools. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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