ecommerce_list_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation and 'all available' conveys scope, but the description does not address output format, ordering, or whether 'available' excludes disabled recipes. The lack of explicit side-effect or permission information is partially mitigated by the inherently non-destructive verb.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word ('List', 'all', 'available', 'workflow recipes') carries meaning, and the length is appropriate for a simple list operation with no required parameters.

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 low-complexity tool with no required parameters and a dummy schema, the description is essentially complete for selecting and invoking the tool. The only gap is the absence of an output schema and any explanation of the returned structure, but the conventional meaning of 'list recipes' makes this omission minor.

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 fully documents the only parameter, _dummy, with a description, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which places this at the baseline 3; the dummy parameter does not require further elaboration.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all available workflow recipes' clearly identifies this as a non-mutating inventory operation. The 'list' scope differentiates it from siblings like ecommerce_run_recipe and ecommerce_save_custom_recipe, whose names imply execution and persistence.

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 the obvious use case when an agent needs an inventory of recipes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ecommerce_run_recipe or ecommerce_save_custom_recipe, nor does it mention any exclusions. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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