mcp_howtocook_getRecipesByCategory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (query by category) and lists categories, but doesn't describe return format, pagination, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately concise—a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a list of categories. Every element serves a purpose: the first part defines the tool's function, and the second part provides essential parameter context. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 query tool with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., recipe list format), error conditions, or how it differs from siblings. While it covers basic purpose and parameter values, it lacks sufficient context for reliable agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by listing the available categories ('水产, 早餐, 调料, 甜品, 饮品, 荤菜, 半成品加工, 汤, 主食, 素菜'), which clarifies the expected values for the 'category' parameter. However, it doesn't explain parameter format, constraints, or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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: '根据分类查询菜谱' (query recipes by category). It specifies the verb '查询' (query) and resource '菜谱' (recipes), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mcp_howtocook_getAllRecipes' (which presumably gets all recipes without filtering), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 lists available categories but doesn't mention sibling tools like 'mcp_howtocook_getAllRecipes' (for unfiltered queries) or 'mcp_howtocook_getRecipeById' (for specific recipes). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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