get_cook_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inputs all the way up' usefully discloses the traversal direction and that it is transitive/upstream, but nothing is said about permission requirements, cycles, or performance on deep chains.

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?

A single sentence with the scoping detail parenthesized and front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and the core action comes first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and for a single-param read tool the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the meaning of the path parameter, which is left ambiguous.

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% for the single path parameter, so the description must compensate. 'For a node' loosely maps path to a node identifier, but neither the schema nor the description states whether it is a node path, name, or network-qualified identifier.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (cook dependency chain) and clarifies the traversal with 'inputs all the way up.' An agent can tell what it returns, but the description does not differentiate it from siblings like get_node_info or explain_node.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named despite many related node-inspection siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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