SousChef

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'JSON string with parsed controls, or error message' which gives basic output behavior. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid paths, performance characteristics, or error handling details beyond the generic mention.

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 with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value description. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though slightly redundant with the schema. Every sentence adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 has an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the parameter well and mentions the return format, but doesn't provide enough behavioral context for a parsing tool (e.g., what parsing entails, error conditions, or performance implications). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but more operational context would be helpful.

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 and only 1 parameter, the description adds significant value by explaining that 'path' can be either 'Path to InSpec profile directory or control file (.rb).' This clarifies the parameter accepts both directory and file paths with specific extensions, which isn't evident from the schema alone. The description fully compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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 an InSpec profile and extract controls.' This specifies the verb (parse/extract) and resource (InSpec profile/controls). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_inspec_to_test' or 'generate_inspec_from_recipe' which might have overlapping domains.

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 in the Chef/Ansible/InSpec migration space, there's no indication of whether this is for analysis, conversion, or another purpose. The only usage context is the parameter description, not tool selection guidance.

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