get_cook_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and mostly does not meet it. It implies a read-only inspection by describing returned facts, but never states that the tool has no side effects, says nothing about behavior when the node path is invalid or the node does not exist, and gives no sense of cost or failure modes.

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 listing three returned facts, with the core question ('whether a node has cooked') front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the fragment style is terse enough that it reads more like a field label than a tool description.

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?

Given a one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is only partially sufficient. It usefully characterizes the return payload, which is the main gap-filler, but leaves the sole parameter and the read-only/no-side-effect guarantee unstated.

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?

There is one parameter (node_path) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It does not explain that a node path is required to identify the target node, what form the path takes, or how the default '/obj' is interpreted, so the single parameter is entirely undocumented across schema and description.

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 names a specific resource (a node's cook state) and enumerates the three facts returned: whether it cooked, how often, and whether it is time dependent. It is clear what information the tool surfaces, but it uses domain jargon ('cooked') without a verb and does nothing to separate it from siblings like get_cook_chain or log_status.

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 any alternative tool. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is a diagnostic read, and cannot tell from the definition whether to reach for it or get_cook_chain.

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