mcp_howtocook_getAllRecipes

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. However, it only states the action ('get all recipes') without any details on traits like whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient in terms of brevity, though this comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (a tool to retrieve all recipes), lack of annotations, low schema coverage (0%), and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like behavioral traits, parameter usage, output expectations, or differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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 has one parameter ('no_param') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't explain what 'no_param' is, why it exists, or how it affects the operation. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameters remain undocumented.

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 '获取所有菜谱' (Get all recipes) restates the tool name 'getAllRecipes' almost verbatim, making it tautological. While it indicates the resource (recipes), it lacks specificity about what 'all' entails (e.g., pagination, filtering) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'getRecipesByCategory' or 'recommendMeals'. This is a minimal restatement rather than a clear purpose definition.

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 sibling tools like 'getRecipesByCategory' for filtered results or 'recommendMeals' for suggestions, nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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