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 behavioral burden, and it does almost none of it. It doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, whether tracing triggers or forces a cook, or what the chain output looks like (upstream vs downstream, ordering).

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?

It is short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence. However, the 'Args:' block merely restates the schema field name, so a meaningful portion of the text is boilerplate that earns no place.

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 parameter, the description is the only source of information and it supplies almost none. An agent would not know the return shape, the direction of the chain, or whether the call has side effects.

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% and the description adds nothing beyond the bare label 'Node path.' No expected format (e.g. '/obj/geo1/attribwrangle1'), no indication of whether it is absolute, relative, or a network-qualified path, and no note on resolution failure behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Trace the cook dependency chain for a node.' An agent can tell this is a read/inspection operation over a node's cook dependencies. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_cook_status, cook_frame_range, or get_node_info, so it falls 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The description does not explain how this differs from get_cook_status (status of a cook) or cook_frame_range, both of which an agent could plausibly confuse with tracing a dependency chain.

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