get_cook_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether the trace is upstream or downstream, how deep it goes, whether it is read-only, or what the response contains. 'Trace' implies a traversal but the shape and cost of that traversal are left entirely to inference.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted wording and the key concept front-loaded. Brevity here is efficient rather than padded, though it edges toward under-specification for a traversal tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent cannot predict the return structure or the direction of the dependency walk before calling.

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%, so the single node_path parameter is documented nowhere except its title. The description only implies it identifies the starting node; it does not state the expected path syntax, whether it accepts a relative or absolute node path, or whether a non-cooking node is valid.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Trace the cook dependency chain' scoped 'for a node'. An agent can tell this is a dependency-graph read rather than a status query or a cook trigger. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_cook_status or cook_top_node, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_cook_status or cook_top_node. The agent must infer the situation from the tool name alone.

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