查詢菜單

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. '查詢' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of automatically showing an interactive menu browsing interface on supported MCP Apps hosts is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, response shape, or behavior on non-supporting hosts.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and resource, and the second adds a relevant behavioral detail about the interactive UI. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the menu contents and the interactive UI behavior sufficiently. It lacks explicit usage routing and a clear statement of return format, but these are minor given the schema and tool simplicity.

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 input schema describes the single optional category parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat it. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb '查詢' (query) and the resource '侘茶菜單' (Wacha tea menu), and enumerates the menu contents: categories, drinks, toppings, and sweetness/ice options. This is specific enough to distinguish it from order-related siblings like create_order and get_orders, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recommend_drinks or get_orders. It only explains the menu query purpose and the interactive behavior on MCP Apps hosts, which is context rather than routing guidance.

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