generate_grille_vetusteGenerate a wear-and-tear (vetuste) grid. Few or no fields required. FR: grille de vetuste. Renvoie un lien a ouvrir pour afficher/telecharger le PDF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Objet contenant les champs du document (voir la description du tool). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uniquely reveals that the tool returns a link to open/download the PDF rather than the PDF directly, which is a non-obvious behavior. It also notes the minimal input requirement. However, it does not detail any potential side effects or data persistence, but for a generation tool this is adequate.
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 concise, consisting of two effective sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the crucial output detail (PDF link). The French translation is useful for the target audience. No unnecessary 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?
The tool's complexity is low (one arbitrary payload parameter), no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the output and minimal input requirement, but it lacks specific field information for the payload, which is essential for generating the desired grid. This leaves a gap in completeness despite the simple nature of the tool.
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 schema's only parameter 'payload' is described as 'see the tool description for fields,' but the tool description merely says 'Few or no fields required' without enumerating any actual field names or formats. The description adds no concrete meaning beyond the schema's circular reference, leaving the user without guidance on what to include in the payload.
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 generates a wear-and-tear (vetuste) grid, which is a specific resource and action. It also mentions the output is a PDF link, adding further clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_etat_des_lieux or generate_inventaire_mobilier.
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 implies usage by stating 'Few or no fields required,' suggesting a lightweight tool, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct document generators or calculators, but check_rent_control and get_reference_rent both deal with rent control and could be confused, as could simulate_irl and simulate_irl_by_quarters. Descriptions mostly clarify boundaries, so only minor ambiguity exists.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., generate_quittance, check_address_risks, simulate_irl). The verbs vary by action but the structure is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 21 tools covering a broad but focused domain of French rental law, the count is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct legal or calculation purpose. The scope is large but justified for a comprehensive rental toolkit.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of a French residential lease: creation, amendments, termination, deposits, guarantors, inventories, rent receipts, unpaid rent, rent control, and rent revision. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.