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 reads file contents and may return an error, but lacks details on permissions needed, file size limits, encoding handling, or whether it's safe for large files. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential behavioral implications.

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 with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences. Every part earns its place, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the args and returns into the initial statement for faster scanning.

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 handles return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important for a file operation tool in a migration-focused server.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents the 'path' parameter, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it does not specify path format (e.g., absolute vs. relative), supported file types, or examples, leaving some ambiguity despite compensating for the schema 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 action ('Read') and resource ('contents of a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'read_cookbook_metadata', which might involve similar file operations in the context of Chef/Ansible migration tools.

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. Given the sibling tools include 'list_directory' (which might list files) and 'read_cookbook_metadata' (which reads specific metadata), there is no indication of when 'read_file' is appropriate, such as for general file reading versus specialized operations.

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