trigger_recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what each returned item contains: parameters, required secrets, and setup steps. It does not mention result count or sizing, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The usage hint is efficiently placed at the end where it reads as a closing recommendation rather than padding.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (parameters, secrets to store, setup steps) so an agent knows the shape of results. A brief note on how many recipes are typical or what to do next after listing would make it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially), so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description introduces confusing or undocumented inputs.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("List the ready-made recipes") and immediately defines what a recipe is ("probes that ship with the plugin"). It clearly separates this from trigger_list/trigger_get by framing recipes as pre-built templates rather than user-created triggers, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Prefer a recipe when one fits" gives an explicit selection heuristic favoring this tool when a pre-built template matches the need. It stops short of naming the alternative (e.g. building a trigger manually via trigger_draft) or stating when NOT to use it, so it falls just below the top score.

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