List Reference Circuit Recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The only added context is the word 'bundled', which implies the recipes come from built-in packages rather than user workspaces; nothing is said about return format, size of the catalog, or pagination.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the resource front-loaded after the verb. It is efficiently written, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry the burden of explaining what comes back and how to use it, yet it does not say whether entries are names, ids, or full specs, nor that an id feeds into describe_reference_circuit_recipe/materialize_reference_circuit. For a catalog entry point in a 90-plus tool environment, that linkage is the missing piece.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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?

States a clear verb (List) and resource (bundled reference circuits), so an agent knows this is a catalog enumeration. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as describe_reference_circuit_recipe or materialize_reference_circuit, and it silently renames 'recipes' (per the tool name) to 'reference circuits', leaving the agent to guess they are the same thing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated relationship to the recipe workflow, and no mention that this should precede materialize_reference_circuit or describe_reference_circuit_recipe. The agent must infer the place of this tool in the recipe pipeline entirely on its own.

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