alternates_for_item

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses that when a save is readable, each row is marked HAVE or LOCKED, providing context about save-dependent output. However, it doesn't mention error behavior, exact output format, or implications of include_locked.

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 no fluff, but the first sentence is grammatically awkward ('alternates first'). Still, it's compact and front-loads the core behavior.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves many gaps: what the response looks like, how HAVE/LOCKED is determined, how include_locked affects results, and what happens if save isn't readable. It's incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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%. The description references 'item' and 'save' only indirectly and does not explain include_locked. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter details in the schema.

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 states the tool lists every automatable recipe that makes an item, with alternates first. It conveys a specific action and resource, though not as clearly as a verb like 'list'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the alternates-first ordering.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recipe_detail or compare_recipe_options. The description implies it's for overviewing recipe options for an item, but doesn't state exclusions or preferred contexts.

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