cook_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states high-level function and does not describe side effects, prerequisites, or whether the operation is safe (e.g., whether it overwrites existing cooked content or requires prior build steps). The lack of such detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately clarifying scope with '(no C++ build)'. No redundant information is present.

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?

For a tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's core purpose and differentiator from sibling build tools. It could be enhanced by mentioning typical use cases or outcomes, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about parameters like 'maps', 'iterate', or 'platform', relying entirely on the schema. Thus, no additional semantic value is provided.

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 a specific action ('Cook content only') and resource ('assets'), and differentiates from build operations with '(no C++ build)'. It also specifies the outcome 'Converts assets to platform-specific format', making purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Cook content only (no C++ build)' provides clear exclusion context—this tool is for cooking assets without building C++, implying use when only content cooking is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like build_target or build_cook_run, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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