SousChef

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the tool generates a plan but doesn't disclose whether it's a read-only analysis, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens if inputs are invalid. The description is functional but lacks critical operational context for a tool with potential complexity.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args section could be more integrated into the flow rather than separate. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return value, and the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return structure. However, it lacks behavioral context like error handling or execution characteristics, which would be valuable for a planning 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters in the Args section: 'cookbook_paths' as comma-separated paths, 'migration_strategy' with approach options, and 'timeline_weeks' as target timeline. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format specifics (e.g., path syntax or strategy enum values).

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 specific action ('Generate a detailed migration plan'), the resource ('from Chef to Ansible'), and the output characteristics ('with timeline and milestones'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generate_migration_report' or 'assess_chef_migration_complexity' by focusing on creating a structured plan rather than analysis or reporting.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'migration_strategy' with options like 'big_bang'), suggesting it's for planning a migration. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_migration_report' or 'assess_chef_migration_complexity', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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