cook_sbs

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: the cook runs headless without Designer open. It says nothing about overwriting an existing .sbsar, expected duration, failure modes, or that sbscooker must be installed — gaps that matter for a mutation/build operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves little room for the missing parameter and behavioral detail.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description is the only source of semantics, and it does not supply them: output location, naming/default behavior, and overwrite semantics are all unaddressed for a 2-required-parameter build tool.

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 description coverage is 0%: input_path, output_dir, and output_name have no meaning in the schema beyond their titles. The description only implies that the input file is .sbs and that a .sbsar is produced somewhere, but never explains which parameter carries which, or what output_name defaults to.

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?

States a specific verb and a concrete transformation: 'Cocina un .sbs a .sbsar con sbscooker' — the agent knows exactly the input and output artifact types and the underlying tool used. It does not name the closest sibling (export_sbsar) explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'No necesita Designer abierto' implies the condition that selects this tool over export_sbsar (headless / Designer closed), but the description never names that alternative or states when to prefer each. The guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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