get_cook_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses main-thread blocking, the inability to see intermediate progress, and the post-cook nature of the status, plus extra checks like unsaved changes. This is genuinely useful beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The summary is front-loaded, the limitation warning prevents misuse, and the alternative is named directly. Length is justified by the safety-critical threading constraint.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the main dimensions of the result: recook, time dependence, error outcome, and unsaved changes. It leaves the exact return shape undocumented, which is a minor but real gap.

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 no per-property description and 0% coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It says 'Node to report on', which is useful but minimal; it does not mention the default path, path format, or how changing node_path affects output.

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 first sentence clearly names what the tool reports: whether a node has cooked, how often, and whether it is time dependent. It also distinguishes this from asynchronous polling tools by framing it as an after-the-fact status check.

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 explicitly warns that long cooks block the bridge and cannot be polled, then points to the right alternative: ROP background execution and get_render_progress. This is a clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use pairing.

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