get_all_dishes

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 only states what the tool does (get a list) without any additional context—such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured, deserving a score of 5.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, return format) and does not differentiate from the sibling tool. While it states the purpose clearly, it does not provide enough context for an AI agent to fully understand how to use it effectively, especially without annotations. This results in a score of 2 for incomplete context.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since there are none. According to the rules, for 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description need not compensate for missing parameter info. Thus, it earns a 4.

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: '获取所有可用菜品的名称列表 (菜单)' translates to 'Get a list of names of all available dishes (menu).' It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('all available dishes'), but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_dish_content' (which likely retrieves detailed content for a specific dish). This earns a 4 for clear purpose without sibling differentiation.

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 does not mention the sibling tool 'get_dish_content' or any other context for usage, such as when a list of dish names is needed versus detailed content. This results in a score of 2 for no usage guidance.

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