Run Agent Chef

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it returns an executable checklist, requires ordered execution, mandates a follow-up loop with next_actions, and forbids advancing to checkout. This goes well beyond a trivial read and earns a solid score.

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 four concise sentences, all content-bearing: trigger, return value, sequential execution, and stop condition. There is no filler, repeated schema, or unnecessary words; it front-loads the invocation triggers and then gives execution behavior.

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 zero-parameter orchestrator with an output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, how to process the result, when to repeat with next_actions, and where to stop. The output schema covers exact return shape, and no missing context remains.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to clarify. With no params, the description has nothing to document, and the baseline 4 applies because there is no risk of parameter misunderstanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it is the entry point for the 'run agent chef' workflow, returning an operating manual and a checklist of due tool calls. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like next_actions by framing itself as the initiating call ('The one call to make when the user says...').

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?

It explicitly lists the trigger phrases that should invoke this tool ('run agent chef', 'run the app', 'plan dinner', 'do the weekly thing'). It also instructs how to proceed (execute the returned actions in order, then call next_actions until it returns nothing). It lacks an explicit when-NOT-to-use statement, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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