generate_reparations_locativesGenerate the list of repairs chargeable to the tenant (decret 87-712). Few or no fields required. FR: liste des reparations locatives. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that 'few or no fields required' and that it 'returns a link to open/download the PDF', which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not explain whether a persistent resource is created, how the payload is used, 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 two concise, front-loaded sentences: the first states the core purpose and legal basis, the second clarifies input requirements and return behavior. There is no redundant filler, and the French translation is a helpful addition rather than waste.
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 description covers the tool's purpose, legal reference, minimal input requirement, and output (a link to a PDF). However, the payload parameter is left unexplained, which is a significant gap given the empty schema and no output schema. This makes the tool usable only in the most basic cases where no fields are needed.
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 defines a single `payload` object with no properties, and its description points back to the tool description. The tool description only says 'few or no fields required', but it does not enumerate any acceptable fields or provide examples. This leaves the agent without concrete guidance on how to populate the payload, despite high schema coverage.
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 'the list of repairs chargeable to the tenant (decret 87-712)' which is a specific document, and the title confirms it produces a PDF. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_quittance or generate_etat_des_lieux.
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 the tool is used when a tenant repairs list is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The specificity of the document makes the usage obvious, but the description lacks direct comparative guidance.
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.