Elenca le ricette di pagina

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it generates markup with Bootstrap Italia 2.x classes (not generic Bootstrap, Tailwind, or non-conforming markup), respects accessibility notes, and always follows the specified pattern. The emphasis on 'SEMER' (always) signals strict output behavior. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what structured fields provide.

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 focused block of 4 sentences that front-loads the primary purpose before adding constraints. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, definition of a recipe, design system requirements, and exclusions. Slightly verbose in the last sentence enumerating exclusions, but still tight overall.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what's needed: what gets listed, what the items are composed of, and what standards must be followed. The sibling context (get_page_recipe) suggests the agent could drill down after listing, and this description gives enough context to make that connection, though it doesn't explicitly point to it.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the schema carries no information to enrich. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description adds value by explaining what the listed items are (page recipes conformant to PA site models) and the design constraints, which helps the agent understand what to expect in the results.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Elenca le ricette di pagina') with clear scope ('conformi ai modelli di sito PA'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on page recipes vs components/webcomponents. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_page_recipe or list_components, though the plural 'list' vs singular 'get' is implied.

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 provides context about what recipes are (composing multiple components into a full page) and the design system constraints, which helps decide when to use. But it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like get_page_recipe for retrieving a single recipe's details. The guidance about not substituting with generic Bootstrap is more about markup standards than tool selection.

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