get_cook_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool traces a dependency chain, implying a read-only operation (no mutation), but does not specify whether it triggers a cook, what the output format is, or whether there are side effects like ensuring the node is cooked. It gives some clarity but leaves significant behavioral details unclear.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus an args list. Every word is purposeful and there is no unnecessary fluff. The structure is straightforward, but the brevity leads to lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 the tool's complexity (a chain traversal), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on the return value format, whether it returns the full chain as a list of nodes, the order of the chain, or any error handling. Without an output schema and with no annotations, the description should provide more context for an agent to correctly interpret the result.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter 'node_path' lacks any schema-level description. The description only mentions 'node_path' as a required arg but does not explain its format (e.g., absolute vs. relative path), allowed patterns, or how it should be specified. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing semantics.

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 'Trace the cook dependency chain for a node', which identifies the resource (a node's cook dependency chain) and the action (trace). It is somewhat specific but does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'build_sop_chain' or 'get_cook_status', which might also relate to dependency or cooking. The description is brief and lacks clarity on what 'cook chain' means exactly.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context such as when a cook chain is needed, nor does it contrast with related tools like 'build_sop_chain' or 'get_cook_status'. The usage is only implied by the action word 'trace', but no explicit direction is given.

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