list_proven_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral constraint — the operation requires Kiln Pro and will fail otherwise — which is real value beyond structured fields. However, it says nothing about result volume, pagination, ordering, or what a recipe record contains.

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?

Only the first sentence describes the tool; the remaining three are pricing upsell copy with a tracked marketing URL that no agent needs in order to select or invoke the tool. Roughly half the text does not earn its place.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and the tier requirement, which is close to sufficient. It leaves the design_id filter and any pagination/limit behavior unexplained, so an agent could call it correctly but not optimally.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50%: limit has a default note but design_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description actively muddies this by saying "across all designs" while a design_id filter parameter exists, so it neither explains nor reconciles the parameter.

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?

"List all proven recipes across all designs" gives a specific verb and resource, enough to distinguish it from sibling list_* tools such as list_decorations or list_design_templates. It stops short of a 5 because "proven recipes" is domain jargon left unexplained and the tool is not explicitly differentiated from the related record_proven_recipe workflow.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites beyond the paywall note, and no exclusions. The "(Pro)" tag implies a tier gate but the agent gets no guidance on what to do when the gate applies.

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