random_recipes

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

With no annotations provided, the description only conveys the basic action of fetching random recipes without disclosing behavioral traits such as data source, idempotency, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. Minimal context beyond the core functionality.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, containing no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could optionally mention that the result is a list of recipes, but it remains adequate for typical use.

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?

Although the input schema only defines 'count' with a default, the description adds a clear valid range ('1–10'), providing meaningful constraint beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so this addition is valuable.

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 action ('Hämta slumpmässiga recept' - get random recipes) and purpose ('för inspiration' - for inspiration), uniquely identifying the tool as providing random recipe suggestions in contrast to specific or saved recipe tools.

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 use for inspiration when random recipes are desired, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternative tools like get_recipe or list_saved_recipes.

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