get_recipe_types

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds that it returns the 'full list' of supported recipe type names, which confirms it's a complete enumeration (not paginated or filtered). However, it does not disclose any additional details like typical size of the list, ordering, or whether names are localized, which would be nice context but is not strictly necessary for a simple, safe list operation.

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, precise sentence that contains zero filler. Every word is essential: 'Get' (action), 'full list' (scope), 'supported recipe type names' (exact resource). No repetition, no unnecessary elaboration.

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 that this is a simple, parameter-free, read-only list operation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It conveys the exact resource returned. A small improvement would be mentioning if the list is sorted or if values correspond to enum values in other tools, but these are nice-to-haves for a tool this straightforward.

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 input schema has no parameters with 100% coverage contextually (no params to document). The description accurately reflects that it's a simple, unfiltered list. Given zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it correctly implies the operation has no inputs.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'full list of supported recipe type names'. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_recipes or get_recipe, as it deals with 'types' not individual recipes, and it's clearly a list operation with no parameters.

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 description implies this is a discovery tool for available recipe categories. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context from sibling tools (e.g., search_recipes for finding actual recipes, get_recipe for a single recipe) provides clear differentiation. A dedicated 'when to use' sentence would elevate this to 5.

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