mcp_cook_recommendMeals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behaviors (recommend, create plan, create shopping list) but does not mention limitations such as what happens if no recipes match, whether it filters by category, or the exact output structure. This is adequate but has gaps.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the main action and includes the key outputs. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent can expect. It mentions creating a weekly plan and a rough shopping list, but lacks detail on the return format, failure modes, or exact recipe selection logic. This is a moderate gap for a complex tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description restates the concepts (忌口, 过敏原, 人数) but adds no new semantic detail about how they influence the result. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs: it recommends recipes based on user constraints (忌口, 过敏原, 人数) and creates a weekly meal plan with a rough shopping list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that simply retrieve recipes by ID or category.

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 a clear use case: when the user has dietary restrictions/allergies and needs a weekly plan. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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