recipes

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it partially discharges it by naming the returned payload: what each recipe takes, its score, last-run-failure status, and its card. It is silent on permissions, ordering, pagination, and whether 'failed' reflects the most recent run only, so it is adequate 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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the salient returned fields. It earns its length, though the closing clause about 'the one-line card a small model runs' is jargon that costs a little clarity for no functional gain.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description does describe the return shape in lieu of an output schema, which is the right instinct. It still leaves the agent unsure of ordering, completeness, and how failure status is scoped, so it is only minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (the single 'host' property has no description), so the description must compensate. The phrase 'optionally for one host' does add meaning: it signals the parameter is an optional filter and identifies the filtering dimension, which is more than the bare schema gives, but it omits format/matching 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?

The description conveys that this returns the collection of compiled recipes, with the per-recipe fields enumerated, and that it can optionally be scoped to one host. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase ('The compiled recipes') rather than a verb+resource action, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like compile, run, or cache, so the agent must infer the operation is a read/list.

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 only usage information is the parenthetical 'optionally for one host', which explains filtering but not when to call this tool. There is no guidance on when to prefer recipes over compile or run, or any stated preconditions.

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