List Recipes By Slug Exports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a small behavioral detail—template type is auto-set on the backend and unique template names are important—but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what response to expect, auth requirements, or any side effects. This is only partial transparency.

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?

The text is short and mostly to the point, but it is structured as a parameter fragment rather than a full tool description. It lacks an introductory sentence and contains a typo ('to use to use'). It is concise but not well-rounded.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and multiple related sibling tools, so the description needed to explain the return value, the role of `slug`, and the distinction from similar export endpoints. Instead, it only covers one parameter and points to an external endpoint, leaving critical operational context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaningful guidance for `template_name` (purpose, auto-set type, uniqueness requirement, where to find valid names), but `slug` and `accept-language` are completely undocumented. It adds value for one parameter but leaves other schema fields without explanation.

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 never states the tool's primary action; it only documents the `template_name` parameter and refers to 'the exports listed.' The agent must infer from the tool name that this lists exports for a recipe slug, so the core purpose is not explicitly communicated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as `list_recipes_exports` or the bulk export tools. The pointer to `/api/recipes/exports` helps with template names but does not explain which tool to select or when this one is appropriate.

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