guia_plan_gatherParses Spanish gather requests into an explicit, non-executing plan without gameplay actions.
Parse a Spanish request into an explicit non-executing plan. No gameplay actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'non-executing plan. No gameplay actions.' That is useful confirmation. But it omits the 180-character input bound, what the returned plan looks like, and how non-Spanish or malformed input is handled, so it adds only moderate behavioral context.
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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key constraint. Every phrase earns its place with no 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?
For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core intent and the non-executing guarantee. Yet with no output schema, it should explain what the 'plan' contains and what happens for invalid input; those gaps leave the agent under-informed about results.
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 'message' parameter is undocumented structurally. The description compensates by indicating the input is a Spanish request, giving real meaning to 'message'. However, it doesn't address the maxLength 180 constraint or expected format beyond 'Spanish request'.
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 verb+resource: it parses a Spanish request into a non-executing plan. This is distinguishable from the siblings (status, performance, diagnose), which are unrelated functions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them or clarify how the 'plan' relates to the title's 'companion mission'.
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?
'No gameplay actions' serves as a partial exclusion, telling the agent this is not for executing gameplay. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to the sibling tools, leaving usage largely implied by the 'parse a Spanish request' phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.