phases_agents_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add one meaningful trait: the operation is local and executes nothing, implying a safe non-executing read. It says nothing about permissions, whether any state is written, rate limits, or what the detection result contains, so it falls short of the disclosure a no-annotation tool warrants.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint, with no filler. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing comes at the cost of the clarity noted elsewhere.

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 single-parameter detection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps: it never defines what a "profil borne" comprises, what the caller receives, or how the result should be used. The absence of an output schema means more, not less, explanation was needed.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Chemin absolu local du projet"), so the schema already fully documents its meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or path-constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies.

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 states a verb ("Detecte") and an object ("le profil borne d'une cible"), so its basic function is identifiable. However, "profil borne" is undefined jargon and the scoping term "localement" is the only differentiator, leaving ambiguity about what is actually detected. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like phases_agents_plan or phases_agents_list_skills.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the other phases_agents_* siblings, nor any stated prerequisites beyond the required absolute path. The only usage-adjacent statement is a safety constraint ("N'execute aucun fichier"), which is behavioral rather than routing guidance.

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