get_ignored_ingredients

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the output is a sorted list of ingredient names, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter read operation. However, no details on authorization, side effects, or performance are provided, but these are not critical for this simple tool.

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 description is extremely concise—two lines of core purpose and output—with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and resource, it is efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description provides complete context: it retrieves the list, returns sorted names, and the sibling tool covers the addition side. No additional information is necessary.

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 has zero parameters, so no parameter description is needed. The baseline score of 4 applies because the schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to add meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the list of ignored ingredients and specifies it returns a sorted list of names. The verb-resource combination is explicit, and the sibling tool 'add_ignored_ingredient' provides natural differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and description imply its role as the read counterpart to 'add_ignored_ingredient', but no direct comparison or usage context is provided.

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