recipe_discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'browses', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explain if it lists, searches, or filters. No details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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 very short (one sentence fragment), and front-loaded with the action. However, it is truncated and incomplete, which is a structural flaw. Every word earns its place, but the lack of completeness reduces conciseness effectiveness.

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?

Without output schema and with a truncated description, the tool is incomplete. A user or agent cannot fully understand what the tool returns or how to use the result. The description should clarify the output (list of recipes) and any filtering criteria.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). According to the rubric, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info since there are none.

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 states it browses installable community SKILLS (ready-made LMCP workflows), which is a specific verb and resource. It gives an example of a morning brief, but the description is truncated, leaving ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings like recipe_install and recipe_list, but not explicitly.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not. Implied usage is when the user wants to discover new recipes. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are provided, relying on the tool name and context.

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