list_custom_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the action ('Listet alle') and the output fields, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior or mention any potential side effects. It also does not disclose any ordering or pagination behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and output fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information 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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear action, and output fields listed), the description is sufficiently complete. It does not provide alternative tool references, but the purpose is unambiguous, and the output schema likely covers return value details.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema leaves nothing to explain. The description adds value by listing the output fields, which helps the agent understand what to expect from the response, even though this is not parameter-related.

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 the specific verb 'Listet' (lists) with a clear resource 'eigene Custom-Rezepte' (own custom recipes), and explicitly mentions the returned fields (id, name, total time, URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_custom_recipe, which likely retrieves a single recipe.

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 its usage (to list all custom recipes) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, such as get_recipe_details or get_custom_recipe. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.

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