academy_recipes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's verb 'List' aligns as a read operation. The description adds the context that recipes are English-only and mentioned content organization by phase, which adds value. There is no contradiction, and while it doesn't describe the return format, it provides some extra behavioral context beyond the annotation, though not extensively.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the main purpose with a clear active verb. It efficiently conveys additional constraints (English-only, organization by phase). The main content is crisp without being overly verbose.

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 filtered-list tool with no required parameters and a single simple parameter, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, how it is organized, and the key limitation (English-only). The lack of output schema is acceptable since return values are not complex, and the description strikes an adequate balance for the complexity involved.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with 'phase' already described as an optional phase number. The description reinforces the phase filter and adds the boundary (1-16), which duplicates schema info. No need for more, but the description does not add new parameter semantics beyond this.

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 tool lists build recipes as step-by-step guides, organized by phase, with a specific verb and resource. While it does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like academy_recipe, the description provides enough specific detail about what it returns to be useful, though the distinction from 'academy_recipe' could be clearer.

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 implies usage by mentioning the optional phase filter and the English-only constraints, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like academy_recipe, nor does it provide explicit exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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