List recipes

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it works 'Offline' and lists 'built-in' recipes, implying a static, pre-populated set. It does not contradict annotations and adds extra value beyond the structured safety hints.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and key output fields. Every word is useful; no redundancy or filler. It efficiently communicates scope, content, and the related apply_recipe action.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states the source (built-in library), the fields returned, the offline nature, and the next step. It does not need to explain return structure further since it lists the exact output fields.

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 already fully documents the optional 'tag' parameter with a clear description ('matches tags or name'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself doesn't mention the filter, but this is acceptable since the schema carries the semantic weight; the description adds no extra parameter context.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('built-in recipe library'), and the output contents ('id, name, tags and difficulty'). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'built-in' and explicitly names the follow-up tool 'apply_recipe', making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Offline', to browse ready-made templates) and points to the next action ('Apply one with apply_recipe'). It provides clear context but doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusion cases, though the word 'built-in' differentiates it from library-management siblings like browse_library.

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