generate_inventaire_mobilierGenerate a furniture inventory (furnished lease). Fields: property_address, rooms/items. FR: inventaire du mobilier (bail meuble). 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, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the output (a link to view/download the PDF) and required fields (property_address, rooms/items), which is useful. However, it omits details such as error handling, input validation, or any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.
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, with three sentences covering purpose, fields, and output behavior. Each sentence earns its place, and the French translation, while slightly redundant with the title, does not add unnecessary bulk.
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 no output schema and a single generic parameter, the description covers purpose, fields, and output link, which is sufficient for a PDF generation tool. It could be more complete by detailing the field structure and explicitly differentiating from sibling tools, but it is largely 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 input schema defines only a generic 'payload' object with no nested properties, so the description's mention of 'property_address' and 'rooms/items' adds crucial meaning. However, 'rooms/items' is vague and lacks an explicit structure, preventing a higher score.
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 furniture inventory for a furnished lease, using the specific verb 'generate' and resource 'furniture inventory'. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like generate_etat_des_lieux, which deals with condition inventory, not furniture.
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 for furnished leases and lists fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_etat_des_lieux. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so 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.