recipe_runs

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

Annotations are absent, so description carries burden. It explicitly states it is a read-only operation ('shows'), with no mention of side effects. However, it lacks details on whether data is real-time or cached, and what exactly constitutes 'results'.

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?

Short single sentence that conveys purpose efficiently, though truncated. No extra fluff, but could be completed for clarity.

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?

With no output schema or parameters, description should hint at output structure (e.g., fields returned). It says 'and their results' but doesn't specify what that includes (success, timestamps, output data). Also no mention of sorting or limits. Incomplete for a data retrieval 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?

Tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description does not need to add parameter info, but it also doesn't confirm that no input is needed. Still, no missing semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the tool shows history of recipe runs and their results, distinguishing it from other recipe tools like recipe_run (executes) and recipe_list (lists recipes). Verb 'shows' plus resource 'history of past recipe runs' is specific and informative.

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?

Description implies usage for reviewing past runs to reuse or compare, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like recipe_list or recipe_get. No prerequisites or context provided.

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