List Recipes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the namespace scoping and 'reusable' qualifier. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, truncation, or result ordering; those are only partially implied by the query parameter description in the schema.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word earns its place while leaving schema details to the structured definition.

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 a readOnly annotation, 100% parameter coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for a simple list operation. It could have explicitly mentioned truncation or the meaning of 'recipe,' but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the limit and query parameters are already documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Find') and resource ('reusable recipes') and scopes it to 'the authenticated caller's namespace,' which clearly states what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_functions or list_servers, but the resource name makes the purpose reasonably clear.

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 implies usage for listing the caller's own recipes, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent could infer that this is the recipe-listing tool, but the description doesn't say when to prefer it over related sibling tools.

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