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 the tool lists structure and returns a formatted string, but lacks details on permissions needed, error handling (e.g., for invalid paths), performance aspects, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. It uses minimal sentences without redundancy. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels could be integrated more seamlessly, and there's slight room to tighten phrasing, but overall it's efficient.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are important for a tool in a crowded sibling set. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context would help.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents the 'path' parameter as 'Path to the cookbook root directory.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, clarifying the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths) or constraints, keeping it at a baseline level.

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: 'List the structure of a Chef cookbook directory.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('structure of a Chef cookbook directory'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'read_cookbook_metadata', which could have overlapping functions, preventing a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools related to Chef analysis and conversion, there's no mention of specific contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons to tools like 'list_directory' or 'analyze_cookbook_dependencies'. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction.

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