cook_content

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the function's purpose but does not mention side effects, the impact on existing assets, whether it is destructive (e.g., overwrites files), or any required conditions (e.g., platform availability). Given the mutation potential, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words but could be slightly more informative about the process. It is efficient and to the point.

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?

The tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but does not explain the behavior of 'iterate' or 'maps', nor the return value or side effects. Given the tool's potential complexity, the description is minimally complete but lacks detail about the cook process and dependencies.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to given the schema coverage. Yet, the description could add typical values for platform, but that is optional. Hence a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'cook' and the resource 'content', and contrasts with 'no C++ build' to distinguish it from build operations. It also states the outcome: converting assets to platform-specific format. This distinguishes it from build_target and other build/cook siblings.

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 says 'Cook content only (no C++ build)', implying when to use this instead of a full build. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. It lacks context on when to choose this over build_cook_run or package_project.

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