Plan safe static asset integration by analyzing a sourced asset manifest and project context, as pipeline step 5.
Plan safe static asset integration from a sourced asset manifest; pipeline step 5
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Model | |
| framework | No | Framework | |
| asset_manifest | Yes | Asset manifest | |
| project_context | Yes | Project context | |
| target_directory | No | Target directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'plan', implying a read-only analysis, but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, requires no auth, or has any side effects. The lack of explicit safety or side-effect disclosure is a gap for a tool without annotations.
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 purpose and includes the pipeline step context. No filler words or redundant details.
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?
The tool has five parameters, two required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only the high-level purpose and pipeline position, leaving out how the parameters relate to the 'safe' planning process, what constitutes a safe integration, or what the expected output is. This is insufficient for a tool with moderate complexity and no other documentation.
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 all five parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, such as their roles or relationships, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but does not enhance semantics.
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 action ('Plan safe static asset integration') and the input ('sourced asset manifest'), and adds a pipeline context ('step 5'). It is distinct from other planning tools by focusing on static assets, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 'pipeline step 5' hint gives some positional context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like coeus_eval_plan or coeus_project_task_plan, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.