List Organizers Tools Empty

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

With no annotations, the description alone must convey behavior; it implies a read-only listing and does define the non-obvious filter semantics of 'empty' (tools referenced by zero recipes). It does not disclose scoping (household/group), ordering, pagination, or permission requirements for a list endpoint that could return large results.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key filter is stated immediately. It could be tightened slightly by explicitly stating the contrast with the full-list sibling, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. However, for a filter/list tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented parameter, the description omits scope, pagination, and the alternative endpoint, leaving meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the sole parameter, the optional 'accept-language' header. It neither explains what the parameter affects (localized tool names?) nor gives format examples, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns a list of tools') plus the defining filter ('not used by any recipe'), which is clear and non-tautological. It does not name or contrast itself with the sibling list_organizers_tools (all tools) or list_organizers_tools_empty's counterpart merge/list operations, so differentiation is left to the reader.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The use case (finding orphaned/unused tools for cleanup) is only inferable from the word 'not used', and nothing tells the agent when to prefer list_organizers_tools instead.

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