list_stack_recipes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is personalized by resolving against the user's OWN library and explains the output shape: each recipe lists which owned assets fill each slot. This gives meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name, though it does not explicitly state side-effect absence.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately clarifies the key distinguishing behavior and return format, making every sentence informative.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It defines the resource, the personalization scope, and what each returned recipe contains, so no critical operational detail is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by indicating that the user context is implicit and that results are scoped to the user's own library, which is the relevant semantic context despite the empty parameter list.

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 clear resource ('curated production stacks' / 'asset recipes'), then clarifies the differentiating scope: they are resolved against the user's OWN library. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stack_recommendations and search_owned_assets by emphasizing curated, owned-asset-specific 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when the user wants curated recipes resolved against their own library rather than generic recommendations or raw asset search. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use it or name any sibling alternative, so usage guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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