查找替代配方

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that results are compared (ingredients + time) and that the tool helps pick a recipe, implying a read-only analytical operation. However, it does not clarify whether the user's current/primary recipe is excluded from '其他做法', nor anything about result ordering, pagination, or volume.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the comparison purpose front-loaded ahead of the trigger conditions. Efficient, though the trigger quotes could be folded in more tightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey the result shape; it conveys the comparison dimensions but not the per-recipe fields. The unexplained `kind` parameter and the ambiguity about excluding the current recipe leave an agent with real gaps.

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 50%: `item` is labeled '物品 id' but `kind` (item vs fluid) has no description and is never mentioned in the description. The item/fluid distinction materially changes results, so the description should have compensated and did 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 uses a specific verb+resource (找出同一物品的所有其他做法) and adds that results are compared on ingredients and time cost. It partially differentiates itself by emphasizing the alternative-finding and comparison angle, though it never names the closest sibling (get_recipes_for_output) that also returns recipes producing an item.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases (「还有别的做法吗」「哪条更省」) that map cleanly to when to call this tool. It does not state when NOT to use it or explicitly route to get_recipes_for_output / get_recipe_details, so exclusions are missing.

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