co_list_recipes

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming what the returned list contains (format and enabled state), which is material since the schema is not provided. It doesn't reveal hidden behaviors like pagination or ordering, but none are clearly warranted for a zero-argument list tool.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then supplies the two key fields and the document scope. It is immediately scannable and contains no filler or redundancy.

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, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and with no output schema, the description gives a sufficient scope and an indicator of the returned fields. It could have been slightly more precise about the relationship between 'output recipes' and the similar recipe-related siblings, but the tool is simple enough to invoke correctly from the shown definition.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is entirely descriptive. Since 0 params get a baseline of 4 under the rubric, the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The 'current document' scoping is contextual rather than parameter information, so no additional justification is needed beyond the baseline.

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 identifies a clear verb ('list'), a resource ('output recipes'), the scope ('current document'), and the fields returned ('format and enabled state'). It is specific enough to convey what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like co_list_recipe_properties or co_get_recipe, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 phrase 'in the current document' gives a usage context, implying this is the right tool for the current document's recipe overview. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose co_list_recipes over alternative listing tools, and no when-not-to-use instructions.

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