design_list_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read operation, which is reasonable to infer, but nothing is said about result ordering, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or what a recipe object contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action comes first and the optional filters follow.

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?

Five optional parameters and no output schema mean the description should ideally describe what a returned recipe looks like and how results are bounded. It covers filtering but leaves return shape and default-limit behavior entirely to the schema, so the picture is only partly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and the kind enum. The description only echoes the kind and tags filters and adds no meaning for styleId, renderer, or limit beyond what the schema states; 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (style recipes) plus the optional filter dimensions, which clearly separates it from design_get_recipe (singular fetch) or design_search_styles. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by' implies the browsing use case, but there is no guidance on when to pick this over design_search_styles, design_suggest_style, or design_get_recipe, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is implied only.

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