consulter_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Lire' implies a non-mutating operation and the sentence usefully discloses one return attribute (local approval status) that would otherwise be unknown given there is no output schema. It does not cover behavior when the plan_id is unknown, what 'localement' means in terms of scope, or the shape of the returned plan.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in usage and parameter guidance.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with zero annotation coverage and no output schema the description must carry safety, return-shape, and error semantics, and it only partially does so. A note on plan_id provenance and failure behavior would close the gap.

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 0% for the single required parameter plan_id, and the description only indirectly implies it identifies a saved plan. It adds no information about where the id comes from (e.g., the output of preparer_plan) or its expected format.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Lire') and resource ('un plan enregistré'), and adds a distinct secondary purpose ('savoir si l'utilisateur l'a approuvé localement'). This lets an agent tell it apart from executer_plan or annuler_plan, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'enregistré' suggests this applies to plans previously created via preparer_plan, and 'approuvé localement' hints at checking state before executer_plan. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer the lifecycle position.

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