cook-tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does (get details), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like error handling, response format, whether it's idempotent, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary verbiage. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's perfectly structured 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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a sibling tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '详细内容' (detailed content) includes, how results are structured, error conditions, or differentiation from 'get_all_dishes'. For a lookup tool with these contextual factors, the description should provide more guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions '菜品名称' (dish name) which maps to the 'dishName' parameter, but provides no additional semantic context about format, constraints, examples, or what constitutes a valid dish name. With 0% schema coverage and minimal parameter information in the description, this is inadequate.

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: '根据提供的菜品名称获取其详细内容' (Get detailed content based on provided dish name). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '菜品详细内容' (dish detailed content). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_all_dishes', which appears to retrieve all dishes rather than specific dish details.

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. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'get_all_dishes', nor any context about when this specific lookup tool is appropriate versus listing all dishes. Usage is implied (when you need details for a specific dish), but no explicit guidance is provided.

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