suggest_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool accesses the user's private library and filters results, but does not detail rate limits, authentication, or what happens on empty results. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose immediately, followed by qualifications. 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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides good context about source (user's library) and filtering. Could mention behavior on no matches or return format, but overall sufficient for a suggestion tool.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions). The description mentions filtering by time/tags/ingredients, which maps to the parameters, but does not specify formats (e.g., units for max_time, tag format). Minimal added value beyond the parameter names.

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 the verb 'suggest' and resource 'recipes from YOUR library', and distinguishes it from base Claude's inability to see the library. It also frames it as the grounding step before planning a week, providing strong purpose clarity.

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 explicitly guides use as the grounding step before deciding a week and notes it returns recipes from the user's library (contrasting with base Claude). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is sufficient for appropriate selection among siblings.

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