Search Workflow Recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful non-obvious context: recipes are 'declarative previews' and 'cannot execute arbitrary tools or scripts.' This is a valuable safety and capability disclosure beyond the annotation structure.

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, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and a single important behavioral caveat following immediately. Every word contributes to clarifying scope or safety.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read-only search tool with a full output schema, the description covers the essential scope, provenance of recipes, and a key behavioral limitation. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema fully documents query, recipe_file, and approved_workspace_path. The description adds no independent parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('workflow recipes') and defines the exact scope ('audited built-in and explicitly supplied workspace-local'). It also distinguishes recipes as declarative previews, making the tool's purpose unmistakable relative to sibling preview and planning 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 verb 'Search' implies when to use it, and the scope helps the agent know what it operates on, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as preview_workflow_recipe or state when one should prefer this tool over another. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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