Browse library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it's a discovery step returning matching recipes/packages for selection, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 two sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence packs in usage context and output without wasting words. No redundant phrases or filler.

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?

Has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the purpose, the workflow context, and what the tool returns (matching recipes/packages). Minor gaps in parameter semantics remain, but given five optional parameters and a rich output schema, the description is mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the tags, query, or package_dir parameters. It only loosely maps to include_recipes/include_packages via the terms 'recipes' and 'packages'. The word 'matching' implies filtering but gives no specifics, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Browse built-in/vault recipes and optional local component packages' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this tool from apply_recipe and install_library_package by describing it as a discovery step, making its unique role obvious.

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?

Explicitly says 'Read-only discovery step before instantiating a recipe (apply_recipe) or installing a package (install_library_package)', which clearly tells when to use this tool versus the named alternatives. It also explains the expected outcome ('returns the matching recipes and packages'), giving solid guidance.

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