singularis_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: it discloses the cost model ('Free') and describes the shape of the listing (input schema, check, cost measurement). It stops short of stating read-only semantics or any rate limits, but for a zero-parameter listing call the risk surface is small.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the usage condition, the next step, and a one-word cost note. The terminal 'Free.' fragment is terse but earns its place by answering a likely agent question about cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the zero-param schema means no argument caveats are required. Combined with explicit when-to-use guidance and the dispatch handoff, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit. The description correctly spends no words on arguments.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (the Singularis recipe library), and spells out exactly what each entry contains: job kind, input schema, returned check, and cost measure. It is clearly distinguishable from the named computation siblings (singularis_solve_heat, singularis_gemm, etc.), which it implicitly covers as a superset.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when a task is numerical but not covered by the named tools') and names the exact follow-up tool (singularis_dispatch) with the sequencing ('then run it with'). An agent knows both when to reach for this and what to do next.

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