get_cook_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that every command runs on Houdini's main thread, that a long cook cannot be polled, and that this tool is therefore diagnostic rather than blocking. It is implicitly a read, but the description does not state non-mutating behavior or any auth/permission requirements, so a small gap remains.

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 core answer is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the constraint that explains why this exists. The middle paragraph is slightly meandering ('Note the shape of the limitation'), but every sentence adds real information and the Args block is tidy.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description must be self-sufficient, and it largely is: it explains the tool's diagnostic role, the main-thread constraint, what is reported, and the alternative path. It does not enumerate the exact return shape, but for a status query this is close to complete.

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 for the single parameter. It does add meaning ('Node to report on') beyond the raw 'Node Path' title, but it omits the default value (/obj) and any path-format guidance that the schema also fails to provide.

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 opening sentence states a specific resource (a node) and the exact facts returned: whether it cooked, how often, and whether it is time dependent. It further sharpens the scope with the after-the-fact questions it answers (did it recook, is it time dependent, did it error, unsaved changes), which clearly separates it from live-polling tools like get_render_progress.

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 states when this tool applies (after-the-fact cook verification) and when it does not (polling a long cook, which blocks the bridge), and names the alternative for asynchronous work: a ROP's background execution plus get_render_progress. This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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