List QuokkaPix Video recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the 'official browser-local' qualifier, which indicates the source and scope of the recipes, and implies these are built-in rather than user-generated. However, it does not describe the return format, whether it returns full recipe details or just names, or any pagination behavior. For a simple listing tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action and resource ('List official browser-local video recipes') followed by a concise enumeration of categories. No wasted words; every element 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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool without an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies what is listed and the scope. The only minor gap is that it doesn't clarify whether the response is a simple list of names or includes metadata, but this is not critical for a list operation. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is sufficient.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters, and no additional parameter information is needed since there are none.

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 action (list), the resource (official browser-local video recipes), and enumerates the specific recipe categories (cutting, crop/resize, conversion, compression, audio, transcription, subtitles). This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_recipes (generic) and list_video_rule_profiles (rule profiles, not recipes).

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 use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives like list_recipes or get_video_recipe, nor any conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and context.

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