catalogue_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does little beyond the bare statement that it reads data. It does not state that the operation is read-only and side-effect free, nor whether the catalogue is static, filtered, or permission-dependent. The only behavioral hint is the shape of the returned content (actions, parameters, plan format), which is thin.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the three things returned. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves little room for routing context.

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 parameterless, output-schema-less listing tool the description covers the essentials of what comes back. However, it does not clarify whether the catalogue is exhaustive or filtered by permissions, nor how the results relate to the execution/preparation siblings in this toolset.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 gives a specific verb ('Lire') and a concrete resource: available actions, their parameters, and the format of grouped plans. An agent can tell it is a discovery/lookup tool rather than an execution tool. It stops short of distinguishing itself explicitly from siblings such as consulter_plan or preparer_plan, so it is clear but not differentiating.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reading of the action catalogue suggests calling it before preparing or consulting a plan, but the description never says when to use it versus those siblings or what conditions favor it. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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