读取 CookLikeHOC 菜谱

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two key behaviors: it retrieves the full recipe and always includes the original upstream source link. This is meaningful context, though it does not address error cases or permissions.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and a key behavioral guarantee. No wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers how to invoke it (using search_recipes path) and what to expect (full recipe plus source link). It is nearly complete, though it omits mention of failure handling.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, including its source (search_recipes' relativePath). The description repeats this usage without adding new semantic details, so 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 reads a complete recipe using the path returned by search_recipes, distinguishing it from sibling tools search_recipes (which searches) and list_categories (which lists categories). The verb '读取' (read) and resource '菜谱' (recipe) are specific.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use the path from search_recipes, implying the proper sequence: first search, then get. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions but provides clear context for when this tool should be used.

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