list_recipes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds the specific data returned (name, description, default tempo/key/scale/bars), which goes beyond annotations. However, no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether the list is exhaustive, any performance implications) is provided, keeping it at an adequate level.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes all essential information. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and output fields. Since an output schema exists, the agent can rely on that for detailed structure. For a simple read-only listing tool, this is complete enough. One could argue for a 5 if it explicitly noted that the list is exhaustive or provided a note about performance, but it's still very good.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds value by describing the output content, which compensates for the lack of parameter detail. Baseline 4 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?

The description states a specific action (list) on a clear resource (built-in composition recipes) and lists the fields returned (name, description, default tempo/key/scale/bars). It also mentions the primary use case (for apply_recipe), distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_recipe itself.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating 'for use with apply_recipe', indicating it is a prerequisite step. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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