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 states the tool parses and extracts attributes but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., invalid file paths, syntax errors), performance characteristics, or output format details beyond 'Formatted string'. For a parsing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan.

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 (parsing Ruby files), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is somewhat complete. It defines the purpose and parameter but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. With output schema handling returns, the description doesn't need to detail output structure, but it should address errors and constraints more thoroughly.

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%, but the description adds meaning for the single parameter 'path' by specifying it's a 'Path to the attributes (.rb) file.' This clarifies the expected input type and file extension. However, with only one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as the description compensates minimally but 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: 'Parse a Chef attributes file and extract attribute definitions.' It specifies the verb ('parse'), resource ('Chef attributes file'), and outcome ('extract attribute definitions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'parse_recipe' or 'parse_template', which handle different Chef file types.

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 sibling tools like 'parse_recipe' or 'parse_template', nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., file must exist, be valid Ruby). The context is implied (parsing Chef attributes files) but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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