baron_recipe_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists built-ins and project recipes with inputs, implying a read-only listing. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe, non-destructive, or if any authentication is required. The behavioral detail is adequate but not rich.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states the primary function, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the scope (built-ins + project recipes), the output content (declared inputs), and the intended use case (discovery before running). No additional information is needed.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining what the tool lists and its purpose, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool lists runnable recipes (built-ins and project recipes) with their declared inputs. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `baron_recipe_run` by explicitly mentioning what the tool discovers for that run tool.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Call this to discover what `baron_recipe_run` accepts before running a workflow.' This provides clear context and links to the sibling tool, guiding the agent to use it as a prerequisite step.

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