td_cook

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

Annotations indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive and idempotent. Description adds context about the stale buffer problem and return value structure, complementing annotations without contradiction.

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?

Concise and well-structured: action, context/usage, and return value in separate sentences. Efficient without redundancy.

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?

For a simple 3-param tool with output schema, description adequately covers purpose, usage scenario, and return. No major gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 covers all parameters (100%), so description adds minimal param context. It implies path is for parent COMP and recurse defaults true, but relies on schema for details.

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?

Clearly states the action (force-cook) and resource (operator/COMP). Distinguishes from sibling tools by addressing a specific TD issue with stale buffers.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use (when results look stale) and prioritizes it over other debugging. Provides rationale for the need, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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