LuckyCola MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' a recipe, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence: '获取菜品的菜谱(制作方法)' ('Get the recipe (preparation method) for a dish'). It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. This makes it highly concise and easy to parse for an agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a single-parameter query tool), the description is minimal. With no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits. While the purpose is clear, the lack of additional context makes it incomplete for effective agent use, especially in scenarios requiring nuanced understanding of the tool's operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'foodTitle' documented as '需要查询的菜品名称' ('name of the dish to query'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter formats, examples, or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 purpose as '获取菜品的菜谱(制作方法)' which translates to 'Get the recipe (preparation method) for a dish.' This specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('recipe for a dish'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'checkImage' or 'fileOperation' since they operate on different domains, but the description itself is unambiguous about its own function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. With sibling tools like 'checkImage' and 'fileOperation' that might handle related data (e.g., images of food or file operations on recipes), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without context for selection.

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