get_cook_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job. It discloses key behaviors: path-based visited set prevents diamond/cycle revisits, max_nodes is a hard HOM access budget that triggers truncated=True, and responses pass through server-side apply_response_cap. This goes well beyond basic read-only labeling.

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 three sentences, dense and information-packed, front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only hint. Every sentence contributes value: traversal method, deduplication behavior, budget semantics, and response handling. No wasted words.

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 description covers the key behavioral contract (bounded DFS, dedup, truncation, response cap) but does not describe the return format. Since there is no output schema, the agent must guess the structure of the returned chain. Still, for a simple chain retrieval tool, the behavioral context is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains node_path (starting point) and max_nodes (HOM budget, hard constraint), but does not explain ctx or max_depth. max_depth is only present in the schema with a default value, leaving its meaning unclear. This is partial coverage, insufficient for fully disambiguating all four parameters.

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 function: it performs a bounded DFS upstream cook chain traversal along inputs() relationships from a given node_path. The verb 'get' is implied and it is distinguished from siblings like cook_node by being explicitly READ_ONLY and focused on dependency traversal.

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 makes clear the tool is for tracing upstream dependencies (cook chain) and explicitly marks it as READ_ONLY, giving context for when it's appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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