recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that id accepts several forms and that a tail must be unique (implying an ambiguity/precondition error case), but says nothing about the 'format' behavior, error handling, or failure on non-unique tails.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally information-dense.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should carry more weight. It leaves the 'format' parameter, return shape, and error conditions undocumented, which is inadequate for a 2-parameter 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for 'id' (full id, type/tail, or unique tail) beyond the bare string type, but it completely omits the 'format' parameter and its default, so compensation is only partial.

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 the tool returns the full text of a single recipe ('单条配方全文'), which is a clear resource + implied retrieval action. The word '单条' (single) gives a soft contrast against the sibling 'search' tool, but it never names alternatives, so differentiation remains implicit.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search' or 'machine'. It only explains id formats, leaving the agent to infer that this is the detail-fetch counterpart to a list/search tool.

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