mcp_howtocook_getRecipeById

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 describes a read operation ('查询' - query) and specifies the return content ('完整详情，包括食材、步骤等' - complete details including ingredients, steps, etc.), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if the recipe isn't found), response format, pagination, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose: '根据菜谱名称或ID查询指定菜谱的完整详情，包括食材、步骤等'. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the query method from the returned details, but overall, it's concise and to the point.

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 context: no annotations, no output schema, 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It adequately explains the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling), parameter semantics (e.g., query format), and differentiation from siblings. For a tool that retrieves specific data, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly without guesswork.

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 1 parameter ('query') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds some value by explaining that 'query' accepts '菜谱名称或ID' (recipe name or ID), clarifying its purpose. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., whether ID is numeric or string, if name matching is case-sensitive or supports partial matches), which is a notable gap given the low schema coverage. This partially compensates but falls short of fully documenting the parameter.

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: '根据菜谱名称或ID查询指定菜谱的完整详情，包括食材、步骤等' (Query the complete details of a specified recipe by recipe name or ID, including ingredients, steps, etc.). It specifies the verb ('查询' - query), resource ('菜谱' - recipe), and scope ('完整详情' - complete details). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'mcp_howtocook_getAllRecipes' (which likely lists all recipes) or 'mcp_howtocook_getRecipesByCategory' (which likely filters by category), though the focus on a single recipe by name/ID is implied.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions querying by '菜谱名称或ID' (recipe name or ID), which implies it's for retrieving details of a specific recipe. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'mcp_howtocook_getAllRecipes' (for listing all recipes) or 'mcp_howtocook_getRecipesByCategory' (for recipes in a category), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not clearly articulated.

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