recipe_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only says the tool lists things. It discloses nothing about pagination, size limits, auth requirements, or what fields come back (names only vs. full step sequences) — and there is no output schema to fill that gap. The parenthetical defining a recipe is the only added context.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. The trailing ellipsis suggests the definition was truncated, which is the only structural blemish.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still needs to know what a response contains (recipe names, IDs, step counts) and whether paging matters. The description defines the concept but not the output, so it is adequate but not self-sufficient.

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 clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain an empty object 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 (lists) and resource (the user's saved recipes), and defines what a recipe is — an ordered sequence of LMCP tool calls with parameters. It does not name or contrast with the nearby recipe siblings (recipe_get, recipe_discover, recipe_runs), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 user's reusable SKILLS" implies scope (own recipes, not discovered/shared ones), which is weak guidance against recipe_discover. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to recipe_get/recipe_run for acting on a recipe.

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