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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive migration report' and 'formatted migration report for stakeholders', which hints at output format, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or how the report is generated (e.g., processing time, data handling). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and return value. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly improved by front-loading key details more explicitly, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters and return values, and the output schema likely covers return format details. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., how it interacts with assessment data) and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a tool that processes input to generate reports.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining each parameter: 'assessment_results' as 'JSON string or summary of assessment results', 'report_format' as 'Report format (executive, technical, combined)', and 'include_technical_details' as 'Include detailed technical analysis (yes/no)'. However, it doesn't specify formats (e.g., JSON structure for assessment_results) or constraints (e.g., valid values beyond listed), leaving some ambiguity. This partially compensates for the schema gap but isn't fully comprehensive.

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: 'Generate comprehensive migration report from assessment results.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('migration report'), and source ('assessment results'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'generate_migration_plan' or other report-related tools, which prevents a score of 5.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing assessment results from another tool), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'generate_migration_plan'. Without this context, users may struggle to select the right tool, making this inadequate for effective usage.

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