list_recipes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe any side effects, pagination, ordering, or rate limits. The description only states the basic function, missing critical behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter list. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema, the description should ideally mention what is returned (e.g., list of recipe IDs or full objects). This is missing. However, with only two optional params and a simple purpose, the description covers the essential usage adequately.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clearly describes both parameters: 'tag' as an optional filter (with examples) and 'max_time' as max total time in minutes. This adds significant clarity beyond the bare schema properties.

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 explicitly states the tool lists recipes from the library (bundled seed + imported/added), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_recipe (single recipe) or add_recipe (adding). The verb 'list' is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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 and filtering recipes via optional parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like suggest_recipes or get_current_plan. No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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