recipe_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation: invalid recipe files are still returned rather than causing a failure. It says nothing about ordering, caching, or completeness of the listing.

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?

A single sentence with the key verb front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (bundled, user, invalid files) carries information about what is returned.

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, read-only list tool the description is nearly sufficient: it enumerates the categories returned, including the error case. With no output schema, it could say more about the returned entry shape, but complexity here is very low.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or argument options exist.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List ... recipes") and narrows scope to bundled, user, and invalid recipe files, which is more than a name restatement. It does not explicitly contrast with the obvious sibling recipe_run, so the distinction is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent can infer this is the read/inspect counterpart to recipe_run. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no named alternative, so guidance stays at the implied level.

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