搜索 CookLikeHOC 菜谱

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds that the search returns upstream source links and is scoped to local recipes, but it does not disclose result limits, ordering, error behavior, or whether the search is fuzzy/case-sensitive.

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?

A single sentence that immediately states the search target and return value with no filler. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description gives some return information (source links) but lacks details on the result format, how limit affects the response, and how this tool relates to get_recipe. It is acceptable for a simple search tool but leaves gaps.

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 67% (query and category have descriptions, limit does not). The description reiterates the query semantics but adds no additional detail about limit defaults or category usage beyond what the schema already states.

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: searching local CookLikeHOC recipes by name, ingredient, or keyword, and returning source links. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_recipe and list_categories.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a search term) via '按菜名、食材或关键词检索', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference sibling alternatives such as get_recipe for fetching a specific recipe.

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