brewfather_list_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a critical safety disclosure. It also mentions that results are compact unless complete=true, and hints at pagination behavior. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error behavior, or what fields are present in compact vs. complete modes. These gaps are notable for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination hint is placed after. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices depth 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and very little description. The description does not cover parameter semantics, return format, error handling, or filtering capabilities. The agent would have to make educated guesses about how to construct a valid request. For a listing tool with multiple optional parameters, this is severely incomplete.

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 0%, meaning the description does not elaborate on any of the six parameters. The mention of 'startAfter' and 'complete' is incidental but does not explain their meaning or usage. Parameters like 'limit', 'include', 'orderBy', and 'orderByDirection' are entirely undocumented in both the description and the schema (which has no descriptions). The agent is left to guess parameter formats and semantics, making this a severe deficiency.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Brewfather recipes'), which unambiguously defines the tool's primary function. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'brewfather_search_recipes', but the act of listing without filters is distinct enough that an agent can likely infer the difference. The read-only note further clarifies intent.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings like 'brewfather_search_recipes' or 'brewfather_get_recipe'. It only mentions pagination usage ('Use startAfter with the last _id'), which is a usage instruction for a parameter, not a tool-selection guideline. The agent receives no context about when listing is appropriate vs. searching or fetching a single recipe.

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