cook_top_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the blocking behavior and the generate_only mode, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, failure modes, or that cooking can be a long-running operation. This is partial but not comprehensive transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clean parameter list. The only minor waste is 'ctx: MCP context,' which is generic and adds little, but overall the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns, what happens when block is false, or what errors/prerequisites exist. For a cooking action with many related TOP tools, an agent still lacks important operational context.

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 description must compensate, and it does. Each parameter receives a meaningful one-line explanation, especially generate_only ('Only generate work items, do not cook') and block ('Wait for cooking to complete'), which add real semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Cook a TOP node') and the effect ('execute its work items'), which goes beyond the bare tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like cook_frame_range or get_cook_status, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_top_cook, get_cook_status, or cook_frame_range. The intended context is only implied by the verb 'cook' and the parameter names, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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