List customer application recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the immutability of the listed resources and the required applications:read scope. That auth context is genuinely useful for planning a call.

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?

Three compact sentences, zero filler, with the core scope ('for one supported service') and the differentiating exclusion (catalog blueprints) front-loaded before the permission note.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, exclusion, and auth. Since there is no output schema, it could say slightly more about what a returned recipe project contains or whether results are paginated, but the gaps are minor.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents orderNo's format and constraints, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'for one supported service' loosely confirms that orderNo identifies the service order, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (list application recipe projects), scopes it to one supported service, and explicitly contrasts it with the VPSnet catalog blueprints, which routes the agent away from list_application_catalog. The 'immutable customer-owned' qualifier further separates it from revision-oriented siblings.

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?

It states the selection condition ('for one supported service') and edges out the closest alternative (catalog blueprints), plus a permission prerequisite (applications:read). It stops short of naming sibling tools such as list_application_recipe_revisions or list_application_catalog outright, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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