recipe_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it explicitly declares 'Read-only.' It also adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that the list reflects buildable images rather than existing environments. It does not mention error/empty-result behavior, but that is a minor gap for a parameterless listing.

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 sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, sibling contrast, and read-only disclosure. The main purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 parameterless, read-only listing with an output schema available, the description is complete: it states purpose, distinguishes from env_list, and discloses side-effect behavior. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add; the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for parameterless tools. Schema description coverage is trivially 100% with an empty 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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('images that CAN be built into golden images with golden_get'), and immediately differentiates itself from env_list by scope. An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names env_list as the alternative and gives the selection condition: recipe_list is the catalogue of what is available to build, while env_list reports what has actually been built and can be forked right now. This contrast leaves no ambiguity about which tool to choose for a given intent.

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