List Recipes

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds only that the tool returns 'safety metadata', a minor output-scope detail, but no behavioral specifics like pagination, ordering, or required authentication are disclosed. No contradiction exists.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the definition is near complete. It could be slightly richer by mentioning that this returns all recipes and pointing to recipes_get for single-recipe details, but nothing critical is 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 100%: all three optional parameters (baseUrl, profile, frontendUrl) are documented with default-resolution behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Cloudeval reusable recipes') and adds 'safety metadata' to indicate the output scope. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling recipes_get tool, relying on the plural vs singular naming.

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 imperative 'List ... recipes' implies when to call the tool but gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or to prefer recipes_get instead. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name and sibling set.

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