pdg_cook

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait (non-blocking), which is valuable given no annotations are present. Yet it does not describe other important aspects like side effects, return value, or handling of already-cooking networks, leaving the full behavior partially undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and key qualifier. No wasted words or redundancy, achieving high efficiency.

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?

With no output schema and sparse annotations, the description does not mention what the agent should expect after invoking the tool (e.g., does it return a cook ID? Should it be followed by pdg_status?). This lack of contextual guidance limits completeness for a non-blocking operation.

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 one required parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'path' refers to (e.g., the node path to the TOP network). This leaves the agent without guidance on how to set the parameter correctly.

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 action (start cooking) and the target resource (TOP network), and specifies non-blocking behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pdg_cancel and pdg_status by focusing on initiation.

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 usage context is implied: call this to begin cooking a TOP network. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., pdg_cancel for stopping, pdg_status for checking progress), which prevents a higher score.

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