injection_rag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analyzing, preparing, and injecting data automatically, but doesn't specify what 'injecte' entails (e.g., where data is stored, if it's destructive, authentication needs, or rate limits). The phrase 'automatiquement' hints at automation but lacks operational details.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating analysis from injection phases), but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 complex tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'RAG' means, what data is injected where, or the expected outcomes. Given the lack of structured fields, more behavioral and contextual details are 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'file_patterns' relate to analysis or what 'enable_graph_integration' does in practice. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyse du projet complet + prépare et injecte les données automatiquement (Phase 0 → RAG)'. It specifies the verb (analyze, prepare, inject) and resource (project data), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_projects' or 'update_project'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Phase 0 → RAG' but doesn't explain what this phase entails or how it relates to other tools like 'search_code' or 'read_graph'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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