get_recommended_arts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only adds 'System-level operation,' which is a hint but does not disclose read-only status, rate limits, data volume, or what the recommendation algorithm considers. The agent remains uninformed about side effects or prerequisites.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides an important context (system-level operation). Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains (e.g., list of art IDs, titles, metadata). It does not. For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, this is a significant gap. The agent lacks information needed to interpret the results.

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 100% (the count parameter already has a description in the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The 'System-level' note does not relate to parameter semantics.

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 retrieves recommended arts for discovery, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_arts (which likely lists all arts) and get_art (single art). The phrase 'System-level operation' adds context that it's not user-specific. However, it could be more precise about what 'recommended' means.

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 list_arts or search_users. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or when not to use it. The description only states it's for discovery, but lacks differentiation from sibling tools.

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