screenstudio_recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: what each call mode returns (list with when-to-use notes, full recipe with overrides merged and explained in plain words, brand kit overlaid) — useful since there is no output schema.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource, but the single dense paragraph packs three call modes plus a long parenthetical list into semicolon-joined clauses, making it harder to parse than necessary. Information-dense with little waste, yet structure could be cleaner.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does describe all three modes' outputs. It omits edge cases such as invalid names or whether recipes are user-modifiable, but is otherwise sufficient for a read-only catalog tool with a nested overrides object.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that omitting 'name' lists all recipes, that 'name' returns the merged full recipe, and that 'brand' (or overrides.brand) overlays a saved kit. This maps each parameter to distinct behavior beyond the raw schema.

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 names a concrete resource (named recipes) and explains it acts as a lookup of pre-built directions that feed into screenstudio_plan_edit. An agent can tell it apart from most siblings, though it never distinguishes itself from the very similar screenstudio_presets.

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?

It states the selection rule plainly: 'None is a default: pick the one that fits the content and where it will be watched, then pass it as recipe to screenstudio_plan_edit.' That is clear when-to-use context and names the downstream consumer, but gives no explicit when-not or alternative-tool comparison.

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