Get Thermomix Modes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the list is read live from the Cookidoo recipe editor (so it reflects additions/removals), and content varies by device with TM7 extras called out. It omits the prerequisite that the agent must already be connected to Cookidoo (cf. connect_to_cookidoo) and says nothing about failure or empty-result 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the trigger condition. The parenthetical mode examples and the concrete "3 Min./120°C/Stufe 1" format are load-bearing rather than filler.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers selection, freshness, and device variance. The one gap an agent could trip on is the Cookidoo connection/auth precondition, which is not mentioned.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by explaining what the device parameter actually changes — TM7-only modes like steaming and browning. The default of TM6 is left to the schema, which is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the Thermomix modes Cookidoo offers") plus the secondary value it returns ("how to write them in a step"). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools that consume the data, such as generate_recipe_structure or update_custom_recipe_steps.

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?

"Call this before writing a recipe that uses modes" gives an explicit precondition and even scopes it (only recipes that use modes). The note that normal time/temperature/speed settings always work prevents unnecessary calls. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it complements or saying what to do if mode lookup fails.

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