list_recipes

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful context: recipes encode expert knowledge and dependency ordering, and this tool is a mandatory gateway for multi-step workflows. It does not describe the output list's format or ordering, but the presence of an output schema covers return shape, making this a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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 primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence earns its place: the recipe definition clarifies what the listing returns, and the IMPORTANT directive adds critical workflow context without bloat.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, what recipes are, when calling it is mandatory, and what to do next (get_recipe). Nothing material is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters (empty input schema), which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing to document, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details. No semantic gap exists.

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 first sentence, 'List available workflow recipes', pairs a specific verb with a defined resource. The description then defines what recipes are, and by framing this tool as the entry point before get_recipe/get_recipe_step, it is clearly distinguished from retrieval and management siblings (create_recipe, delete_recipe).

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'You MUST call this before starting any multi-step type design task' with concrete examples (scaling, auditing, spacing, kerning, compatibility checks). It also names the alternative and next step: 'call get_recipe(name) and follow its steps in order'. This is textbook when/when-not/alternative routing.

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