valetvoisin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not publish or pay, returns a reviewUrl for human confirmation, and requires the agent to pass the URL to the human. This is meaningful behavioral context. It could add more about side effects or state changes, but the core non-destructive behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the critical workflow constraint, and the third gives the prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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 draft-creation tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what it does, what it returns (reviewUrl), and the prerequisite step. It doesn't describe the output format in detail, but the reviewUrl mention is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. The main gap is not describing what happens after the human confirms, but that's outside the tool's scope.

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 already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds context for categorySlug (choose via list_services) and mentions the reviewUrl flow, but doesn't add much beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: preparing a draft mission (brouillon de mission) without publishing or paying. It gives concrete examples (plumber in Fribourg, cleaning in Lausanne) and explicitly distinguishes itself from publishing/payment actions. The verb 'Prépare' is specific and the resource (mission draft) is clear.

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 explicitly instructs to use valetvoisin_list_services first to choose categorySlug, and explains the workflow: return a reviewUrl to transmit to the human for verification/correction/confirmation. It also states what NOT to do (ne publie rien, ne paie rien), which is strong usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-style catalog operation and specifies exactly what information is returned (slugs, base prices, cities, commission scale). It does not mention authentication or potential limitations, but for a simple no-parameter list the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then packs in the key output details (slugs, prices, cities, commission). Every element earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no parameters, the description does a good job of telling the agent what the catalog contains and how to use it with create_task_draft. It could add a note about the response format, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description still usefully explains that the output provides slugs for create_task_draft, which is the relevant semantic context for an agent.

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 identifies the resource ('services disponibles') and the specific purpose: listing slugs for use in create_task_draft, along with CHF base prices, covered cities, and commission scale. It goes beyond the tool name and distinguishes the tool from its sibling create_task_draft by explicitly linking to it.

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 states the usage context: this catalog provides the slugs needed for create_task_draft, which implicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before calling that sibling. It does not explicitly say when not to use platform_info, but for a zero-parameter catalog the context is clear.

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

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 the types of information returned (policy, endpoints, zone) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires any authentication. It also fails to describe the output format, which is critical since there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the resource and then lists specific content categories. There is no redundant wording, and every element adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and content areas. However, it does not specify the format of the returned information (e.g., text, structured data), which an agent would need to know to properly use the output. It is adequate but leaves a notable 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the absence of any parameter-related information is appropriate.

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 provides information about ValetVoisin, listing specific content areas (AI agent policy, endpoints, covered zone). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_task_draft and list_services, though it does not explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is clear but could be more explicit about its scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which an agent should choose it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage entirely implied.

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