browser_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 convey that the tool is a read operation and that the detail mode returns steps and parameters. It omits what happens when 'name' matches no recipe, whether the list is paginated or ordered, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

A single compact sentence with the default behavior front-loaded and the parameter case second; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too short for the tool's two distinct modes.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both modes but leaves the return shape, ordering, and not-found behavior unexplained. Adequate, but not more than minimum viable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'name' is explained both by its absence (list all recipes) and its presence (show that recipe's steps and parameters). It lacks format hints (exact recipe identifier vs. fuzzy title), but the parameter's effect is clear.

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+resource ('lista las recetas grabadas') and distinguishes two modes: plain listing vs. detail view when 'name' is supplied. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like browser_replay or browser_record_start, which also concern recorded recipes, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 conditional 'o, con name, muestra sus pasos y parámetros' implies when to pass the parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as browser_replay for actually executing a recipe.

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