Import a plan file as PENDING tasks without starting a mission. WHEN TO USE: you have a plan file (.brain/plans/*.md) you want loaded into the task store so the executor daemon / sprint mission can pick the tasks up later — but you don't want to start a mission right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_path | Yes | Path to the plan markdown file. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses the key trait (import without starting mission, tasks become PENDING). However, it omits details like behavior on duplicate imports or error handling, which would enhance transparency.
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 concise with two clear sentences plus a specialized usage section, no redundant information, and the key purpose is front-loaded.
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's simplicity (single parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the import action and usage context. Minor omission: no mention of success/failure indications, but output schema likely covers that.
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?
Although parameter schema coverage is 100%, the description adds context by specifying the expected file pattern (.brain/plans/*.md), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Path to the plan markdown file'.
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 'Import', the resource 'plan file', and the resulting state 'PENDING tasks', distinguishing it from sibling tools like nucleus_plan_execute that start a mission.
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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly specifies the exact scenario (have a plan file, want to load without starting a mission) and implicitly when not to use (when you want to start a mission), providing clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are grouped by domain with detailed descriptions, but some overlap exists (e.g., multiple relay-related tools like nucleus_relay, nucleus_relay_subscribe, nucleus_next_message). Overall, most tools have distinct purposes, and descriptions help disambiguate.
All tool names follow the 'nucleus_' prefix with a consistent noun-like second part (e.g., nucleus_agents, nucleus_audit, nucleus_delegate). Even compound names like nucleus_lane_feedback maintain the pattern, with no mixing of conventions.
With 28 tools, the count is on the higher end but still justifiable given the broad scope of an agent operating system. The tools cover many necessary functions, though the set could be slightly trimmed for focus.
The tool surface covers most aspects of an agent OS: agents, audit, delegation, memory, features, federation, governance, infra, lanes, messaging, orchestration, plans, relay, routing, sessions, slots, sync, tasks, telemetry. Minor gaps like a dedicated config tool are absent but not critical.
