Recipe List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it is a 'cheap directory' covering 'every' registered recipe and it returns a specific envelope. It does not discuss pagination or scale limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only list that is a minor gap.

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 a single dense sentence with front-loaded purpose, return shape, and sibling routing. The parenthetical '(issue #136)' is minor noise, and 'named, parameterized, declared-input build templates' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but overall the text is efficient and well ordered.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: {schema, count, recipes} with each recipe mapping to {doc, required, optional, emits}. It also names the related tools and the intended workflow, so nothing essential is missing for a zero-parameter read-only list tool.

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 the input schema leaves nothing undocumented. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify; the description instead usefully explains the return structure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List every registered part recipe' and defines what a recipe is. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools recipe_schema and recipe by framing itself as the directory to browse before parameterizing.

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 gives clear workflow context: use this as 'the cheap directory to browse before picking and parameterizing a recipe with recipe_schema / recipe.' It names alternatives but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list exclusion cases.

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