menu_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. It does not disclose whether this is a read or write operation, what side effects exist, pagination behavior, or any constraints. The phrase 'active recipes and ingredients' suggests a read operation, but nothing is explicit. The description is purely a noun phrase with no behavioral information.

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 extremely brief (three words) but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It offers no useful information and fails to earn its place. A concise description that conveys meaning would be acceptable; this one conveys almost nothing.

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?

This is a data-returning tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides none of the pagination context (limit/offset), field selection (fields), or behavior of what 'active recipes and ingredients' means. An agent cannot reasonably determine what this tool returns or how to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% – the parameter names (limit, fields, offset) are generic pagination/selection fields, but the description provides zero explanation of them. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, so an agent has no idea what 'fields' accepts or how 'limit' and 'offset' behave. With no schema descriptions, the tool description must compensate and it does not.

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 'Recetas activas e ingredientes' is a noun phrase stating the resource (recipes and ingredients) but lacks a verb – it doesn't say whether the tool lists, creates, updates, or deletes them. It also doesn't clarify what 'active' means. This is more than a tautology but far from a specific verb+resource statement, and it doesn't help distinguish from siblings like menu_products or menu_modifiers.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context, exclusions, or related tools. An agent would have to guess when to call this vs menu_products or analytics_menu. The only hint is the name itself, which is not guidance.

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