cook_node

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 mentions the action 'force-cook' and the outputs, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., scene modification, performance impact), prerequisites, or any restrictions. The behavioral information is minimal.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core action and quickly add the verification framing. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, but completeness is weak overall. The description covers the return aspects (cleanliness, errors, warnings, cook time) and notes the primary purpose, but it omits parameter guidance and any behavioral caveats. Given no annotations and no output schema, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 a single required 'path' parameter with zero description coverage. The description never mentions the 'path' parameter, nor does it explain what path should refer to, expected format, or any examples. It adds no value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'force-cook' and clearly identifies the resource 'node'. It states exactly what it does: cook a node and report on whether it cooked cleanly, with errors, warnings, and cook time. It also differentiates itself from siblings by claiming to be 'the definitive way to verify a node works.'

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'The definitive way to verify a node works.' It implies the appropriate scenario but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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