aiworkhub_manager_recipe_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the argv template is deliberately withheld while identity/digest/risk/capabilities are returned, and an empty store is a valid state returning registry_count zero. It does not mention ordering or pagination behavior.

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 short sentences with the scope and the key caveats front-loaded; no filler. Minor noise from reStructuredText markup (``registry_count``) and a slightly unusual line break mid-sentence.

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 needn't be spelled out, and the description covers the empty-store edge case. The gap is pagination: for a bounded listing tool with two undocumented params, the description leaves how to page through a large registry unexplained.

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% and the description never mentions limit or offset, their defaults, or how paging interacts with "bounded" listing. An agent has to read the bare schema properties and guess at pagination semantics.

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?

"bounded identity/contract listing of persisted recipes" names a specific verb (listing) and resource (recipes) and scopes the payload to manifest metadata. It implicitly separates itself from sibling recipe_show/recipe_run/recipe_register, but never names them explicitly.

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 MANAGER READ prefix and "listing" imply a read/enumeration use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus recipe_show (single recipe detail) or recipe_usage. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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