SousChef

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions analysis and recommendations but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, how it handles errors, or any rate limits. The description is functional but lacks operational context needed for safe invocation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly redundant with the main description. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more streamlined by integrating the sections.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, analysis function) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and returns at a high level. However, without annotations, it lacks details on behavioral safety and operational constraints, which are important for an analysis tool.

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. It adds meaningful semantics: 'cookbook_path' is explained as 'Path to Chef cookbook', and 'databags_path' as 'Optional path to data_bags directory for cross-reference'. This clarifies the purpose and optionality of parameters beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths).

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('analyze', 'provide migration recommendations') and resources ('Chef cookbook', 'data bag usage'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'convert_chef_databag_to_vars' (which performs conversion rather than analysis) and 'generate_migration_report' (which generates reports rather than analyzing usage).

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 implies usage context through the mention of 'migration recommendations', suggesting this tool is for migration planning. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'assess_chef_migration_complexity' or 'generate_migration_plan', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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