list_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what the catalog contains and that category narrows the output. It also repeats the read-only property, which is consistent with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool returns, then covers the optional filter, the sibling tool to use for more detail, and the read-only nature. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 the simple single-optional-parameter interface, an output schema, and annotations that already convey safety, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It includes the category values, the filtering behavior, and the fallback tool for deeper detail. Nothing essential 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%, so the schema already fully documents the category parameter, including its allowed values and default behavior. The description adds 'narrows the list' but does not materially go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific purpose: listing every operation in the recipe vocabulary with one-line descriptions, parameter hints, and preset names. It differentiates itself from explain_operation by explicitly directing users there for full schema details. This is far beyond a vague or tautological description.

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?

It states the optional category filter and its allowed values, and explicitly names explain_operation as the alternative when full schema details are needed. This gives an agent clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling. The read-only note reinforces safe usage.

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