recipe_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the return envelope {schema, count, recipes} plus each entry's shape {doc, required, optional, emits}. That is substantial behavioral context for a listing tool; it doesn't mention pagination or side effects, but a read-only listing has little more to disclose.

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?

Purpose and the recipe definition are front-loaded, followed by the return shape and the routing hint. It is dense but every clause earns its place; the parenthetical '(issue #136)' is the only piece of marginal value.

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, so the description's explicit return-value documentation is necessary and sufficient. Combined with the sibling routing hint, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or selector inputs, matching the empty 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every registered part recipe') and defines what a recipe is ('named, parameterized, declared-input build templates'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools recipe_schema and recipe, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly positions itself as 'the cheap directory to browse before picking and parameterizing a recipe with recipe_schema / recipe,' naming the alternatives and the workflow stage. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, but the sequencing is unambiguous.

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