Search Workflow Recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description nonetheless adds meaningful context beyond them: recipes are 'audited' and are 'declarative previews' that 'cannot execute arbitrary tools or scripts' – worth stating explicitly for an agent deciding whether a recipe is safe to invoke.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the what-it-searches scope is front-loaded before the safety caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 a rich annotation set, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description only needs to add safety/scope context, which it does. The one gap is not clarifying how the built-in vs. recipe_file search paths behave, though the schema largely covers this.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so query, recipe_file, and approved_workspace_path are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a weak hint that recipes may be 'explicitly supplied' locally, which loosely maps to recipe_file, but supplies no format or relationship detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('search') and resource ('workflow recipes'), and scopes it to 'audited built-in and explicitly supplied workspace-local' sources, which tells the agent what corpus is searched. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling preview_workflow_recipe, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as preview_workflow_recipe or plan_cross_app_workflow. Usage is only implied ('search' = discovery), with no exclusions or preconditions, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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