list_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List available recipes') without explaining what 'available' entails (e.g., pagination, sorting, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('List available recipes') with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'available' means and behavioral details (e.g., how recipes are listed), which are important for a tool that might return a list. The output schema helps, but the description could be more informative.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. However, it could hint at implicit filtering (e.g., by 'available'), but this is not required, so a baseline score of 4 is justified.

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 'List available recipes' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('recipes'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'available' means (e.g., all recipes, filtered by user, etc.) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_recipe_by_index' or 'search_mathem_ingredients', making it vague in context.

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 alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer 'list_recipes' over 'get_recipe_by_index' (for specific recipes) or 'search_mathem_ingredients' (for ingredient-based searches), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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