get_dish_content

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 the basic operation without mentioning important behavioral aspects like: whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the dish doesn't exist, what format the detailed content returns in, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 apparent simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '详细内容' (detailed content) includes, what format it returns, or how to handle cases where the dish isn't found. For even a simple lookup tool, users need to understand what they'll get back and how the tool behaves in edge cases.

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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions '菜品名称' (dish name) which corresponds to the 'dishName' parameter, but provides no additional semantic context about what constitutes a valid dish name, whether it's case-sensitive, if partial matches are supported, or examples of expected values. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the parameter name.

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 the 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 its sibling 'get_all_dishes' which presumably lists all dishes rather than getting detailed content for a specific one.

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' or any context about when detailed content is needed versus a list of dishes. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be used.

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