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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at two behaviors — content is 'borne' (bounded) and only identifiers (no free paths) are accepted — but never explains the bound, what happens on an invalid/unknown skill_id, permission requirements, or the return shape.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though extremely sparse for a three-required-parameter tool.

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?

With three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of root_ids or today, the description is too thin for an agent to call this tool confidently. The one behavioral constraint it does give ('aucun chemin libre') is not enough to cover the gaps.

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%: 'today' is documented in the schema while 'root_ids' and 'skill_id' are not. The description says lookup is 'par identifiant' but never explains what root_ids (1–16 ids) is for or why an injected 'today' is required, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Retourne le contenu ... d'un skill') and scopes it by 'identifiant', which separates it from the sibling phases_agents_list_skills (listing) without naming it. The qualifier 'valide' adds a validity condition, but no explicit sibling differentiation is given.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus phases_agents_list_skills, phases_agents_refresh_skills, or phases_agents_plan. 'Aucun chemin libre n'est accepte' is an input constraint, not usage guidance. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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

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. It does not explain what makes a package 'valide', whether discovery scans the filesystem or a cache, whether it is read-only, or how it relates to refresh_skills; only a vague 'découvre' hint is offered.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the filtering constraint is included. It is terse to the point of being under-specified rather than bloated.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description does not provide enough for an agent to call this correctly or interpret results — notably it never says whether 'valides' filtering has side effects or what is returned.

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 coverage is 50% and the description adds no parameter information at all. In particular 'root_ids' is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess what roots to search and what identifier format they take.

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+resource: 'Découvre et liste ... les packages de skills valides', with a scope qualifier ('uniquement ... valides') that hints at filtering. It does not name or contrast with the sibling get_skill or refresh_skills, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 mention of the alternatives among siblings (detect, get_skill, plan, refresh_skills). The agent must guess whether listing is a discovery step or a cached read.

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

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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a rebuild (likely a mutation that overwrites existing state) and hints at authorization via "racines autorisees", but never states whether existing data is destroyed, whether permissions are required, or if the operation is idempotent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently written, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing details scored 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 mutating, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the definition leaves too much unsaid: what the rebuilt registry contains, the effect on existing skills, and what is returned. An agent cannot safely decide whether to call this.

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 coverage is 50%: "today" is documented in the schema, but "root_ids" has no description. The phrase "racines autorisees" loosely signals that root_ids must be authorized roots, but adds no format, cardinality (max 16), or relationship detail beyond what the schema already enforces.

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 has a concrete verb ("Reconstruit") and object ("un registre"), but the object does not match the tool name: it says "registre" while the tool is about skills. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like phases_agents_detect or phases_agents_list_skills, leaving the agent to guess what is actually being rebuilt.

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 mention of the sibling tools (detect/get_skill/list_skills/plan) that could be alternatives. The adverb "explicitement" hints the operation is deliberate but does not tell the agent when that is warranted.

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