plan_stages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that durations are balanced, that a technical passage at stage end is avoided, and that GPX/fiche outputs gain per-day/per-stage sections. It does not state whether the route is mutated, whether permissions are needed, or whether it is reversible.

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?

Reasonably sized and front-loaded with the core purpose before parameter hints and output effects. Slightly dense parenthetical enumeration, but no redundant filler.

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 needn't be explained, and the description still usefully notes output artifacts. But for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the omissions around `walker` and `route_id` semantics leave the agent under-informed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for `overnight` (enumerating abri meaning) and for `days`/`max_hours_per_day` including the set_constraints default, but says nothing about `route_id` or `walker`, leaving two of five parameters undocumented.

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 ('Découpe un itinéraire en étapes de plusieurs jours') and elaborates the outcome (accommodation or bivouac per stage). It is clearly distinct from siblings like compute_stats or set_constraints, though it never names an alternative to differentiate itself explicitly.

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?

It explains the `overnight` option semantics and that `days`/`max_hours_per_day` should be given, with a documented fallback to set_constraints. However there is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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