unlocked_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool defaults to alternates and never returns all 872 recipes, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe side effects, though the query-like nature implies safety.

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 concise sentence, which is not bloated. However, it is under-specified, omitting essential parameter details and use-case context. It is not as incomplete as a tautology, but it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, the role of save and world parameters, or what 'alternates' means, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 low (25%), and the description does not compensate. 'Defaults to alternates' restates the schema default for only_alternates, and 'never all 872' relates to the limit cap already present in the schema. The save and world parameters remain unexplained.

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 'Which recipes this world has' clearly identifies the resource (recipes) and scope (world), implying a query/list operation. It is understandable but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not differentiate from sibling recipe tools.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_recipes' or 'recipe_detail'. The phrase 'Defaults to alternates, never all 872' hints at a limitation but does not state suitable use cases or direct users to other tools.

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