list_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does state the critical trait: it is read-only documentation that never touches a device. It does not address pagination or whether the enumeration is exhaustive, but the essential safety profile is explicit.

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 field list and the docs-only disclaimer are front-loaded and earn their place. However, roughly half the text enumerates twelve specific recipe names that the tool itself returns, duplicating output the agent will receive anyway.

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, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers subject matter, return fields, and safety sufficiently. Minor gaps, such as result ordering or volume, are unlikely to affect a correct invocation.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required and instead spends its words on output shape, which is the right allocation here.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ("List the closed-loop control recipes") and names the returned fields (id, title, interface, summary), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It never names get_recipe or explains the list-vs-single relationship, so sibling differentiation relies on the caller noticing the plural name.

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?

"Documentation only; never touches a device" gives useful context on when this is safe to call, but there is no explicit routing guidance such as "use this to discover recipe ids, then call get_recipe for details." The usage pattern must be inferred from the plural name and the field list.

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