list_drawing_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool lists 'compact audited' recipes, implying some filtering or preprocessing, but does not detail potential side effects, performance implications, or authentication needs. A score of 3 is appropriate as it adds some context but lacks full disclosure.

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 a single sentence that succinctly states the action and resource, with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Lists' and efficiently conveys the necessary information.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description reasonably covers the tool's scope by listing the types of recipes included. However, it could clarify whether the list is exhaustive or subject to filters, but with zero parameters and output schema handling return values, it is sufficiently complete.

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, so according to the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the types of recipes listed (layer, lineweight, projection, export) and the 'compact audited' qualifier, which compensates for the lack of parameter details.

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 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource as 'drawing recipes' with qualifying details: 'compact audited layer, lineweight, projection, and export recipes'. This distinctly separates it from sibling list tools like list_diagram_assets or list_drawing_assets.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It only states what it lists, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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