advance_all_plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it explains skipping non-ingested plans, how dead-pid stories are handled via check_story_status, and why an external reap pass is deliberately not wired in. This is detailed, non-obvious behavior that an agent would not otherwise know.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the skip condition is immediately clear. The zombie-reaping note is valuable but contains more incident detail than an agent needs for selection, so the definition is slightly verbose rather than perfectly concise.

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 zero-parameter batch tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, which plans are included, and important behavioral caveats. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively covers the input contract. The description adds relevant context by explaining that no plan name needs to be passed because the tool iterates all ingested plans.

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 action ('Run advance_pipeline') and a precise resource scope ('every plan that has been ingested'), and distinguishes itself from the per-plan sibling advance_pipeline by emphasizing 'every plan' and the manifest condition. It also clarifies what is excluded (plans without a manifest).

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 gives a clear intended use case: a recurring scheduler that picks up newly ingested plans automatically, and notes the no-hardcoded-plan-name benefit. It does not explicitly name the alternative for single-plan advancement, though 'every plan' strongly implies the boundary with advance_pipeline.

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