phases_agents_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits: it loads a valid registry and it causes no side effects because it executes no skills. Beyond that it says nothing about failure modes, preconditions, or the determinism guarantees referenced around 'plan_version'.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Purpose and the no-execution constraint come first. It is efficiently written, though arguably too terse given the tool's parameter complexity.

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 6 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how constraints, plan_version, or client_capabilities shape the plan, nor what the returned plan contains, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 only 33% across 6 parameters, including a nested 'constraints' object, yet the description adds no meaning to any parameter. Words like 'cible' and 'registre valide' loosely map to target/root_ids, but no parameter is actually explained, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 specific action sequence ('Detecte une cible, charge le registre valide et rend un plan deterministe') with a clear deliverable: a deterministic plan. The negation 'N'execute aucun skill' clarifies its scope versus execution-oriented siblings, but it does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 clause 'N'execute aucun skill' implies the tool is for planning rather than execution, giving an implied when-to-use signal. However, it never states when to prefer this over phases_agents_detect or the registry/skill tools, so usage is left largely to inference.

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