substitute_food

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (recommend replacements) but does not explicitly mention read-only nature, output format, ranking logic, or any limitations. It adds some context beyond the name but remains basic.

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, well-structured sentence in Chinese that packs the essential elements: constraint types, comparison scope, and action. No fluff or repetition, every part earns its place.

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 is concise yet sufficient for a simple 3-parameter tool. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. It provides enough context for the main purpose and the constraint parameter, though it omits details about top_n and edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, completeness is above minimum.

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 explains the 'constraint' parameter by listing example constraints (low potassium, low phosphorus, etc.) and clarifies 'food' is a similar-category item. However, 'top_n' is not explained, leaving its meaning (number of recommendations) implicit from its name and default. Partial compensation only.

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 recommends replacement options (替换方案) among similar foods (同类食物) under specific dietary constraints (低钾/低磷/低钠/低蛋白/等能量). This is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools that calculate targets or look up nutrients, as it focuses on substitutions.

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 use when a user needs a food substitute under a health constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks direct comparison with sibling tools like lookup_food_nutrients or calc_nutrition_target, so guidance is only implicit.

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