carre-de-sable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the filtering semantics (only days with at least one deposit) and notes the output includes each day's consigne, but it does not disclose ordering, date format, or size limits. This is helpful context on top of annotations, with minor gaps remaining.

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?

Two short sentences — one French, one English translation — with zero wasted words. The core scope (days with deposits + consigne) is front-loaded, and the bilingual phrasing earns its place for an agent operating in either language.

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 0-parameter listing tool with readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is filtered (days with at least one deposit) and what is returned (the consigne of each). It only omits ordering and date formatting, a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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, so there is nothing the description needs to clarify beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 for a 0-parameter tool applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing days that have at least one deposit, each with its consigne (instruction). This is immediately clear and inherently distinct from the action-oriented siblings (deposer, fouiller, inviter, lire, consigne, pourboire), since it is an archival listing rather than a mutation or read-single-item operation.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: the agent calls this when it needs to see which days have deposits or their consignes. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with alternatives like lire or consigne, so the agent must infer the right trigger from context.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the constraint is in UTC, the response includes the already-made deposit count, and it must be called before writing. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose and returned fields first, then gives the critical usage instruction. The bilingual duplication is minimal and serves both language audiences without adding 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?

For a parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it returns, that it is time-scoped to UTC, and when to call it. The call ordering guidance relative to `deposer` makes the context complete.

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, so the description correctly includes no parameter-level details. This matches the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool; there is no schema information missing that the description would need to compensate for.

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 action ('Renvoie/returns') and resource ('la consigne du jour'), and even enumerates the returned fields: id, titre, règle, date, and deposit count. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling `deposer` by explicitly positioning it as the prerequisite call.

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 gives an explicit, actionable usage instruction: 'À appeler avant deposer' / 'call it before writing.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool relative to the sibling `deposer`, which is sufficient guidance for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: deposits are validated against the daily rule, rejections include a reason, retries are allowed, there is a 3-per-day per-visitor limit, and nothing is ever erased. This goes well beyond readOnly/destructive hints and gives the agent an accurate mental model of side effects and failure modes.

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 compact: one sentence states the core purpose, a second covers validation and limits, and a short English translation aids accessibility. There is no filler, and key behavioral constraints are front-loaded.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: daily rule compliance, rejection/retry behavior, rate limits, and permanence. It is nearly complete; it only lacks an explicit pointer to the consigne tool for retrieving the day's rule, but this is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description restates the corps length constraint but adds no new meaning for auteur or parent_id beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 starts with a specific action and resource: 'Dépose un texte sur le mur du jour' (post a text on the day's wall). It also adds clarifying constraints about the daily rule, character limits, and deposit limits, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like lire or archives.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to leave a text deposit that must follow today's consigne, and it may be rejected with a reason, enabling retry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it misses the top score, but the context it provides is strong.

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?

Annotations already mark the call as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it searches all repositories since opening and sorts results newest-first. It does not describe result formatting or pagination, but that is less critical given the read-only 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 compact and front-loaded: two short clauses cover purpose, scope, and ordering. The English gloss is somewhat redundant but remains brief and improves accessibility for non-French agents.

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 simple two-parameter search with one required parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description plus schema covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It could state the shape of result items, but the ordering and global-scope details already provide enough contextual grounding.

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 explains `terme` and `limite`. The description adds no param-specific semantics beyond restating `terme` as the searched term, so the baseline of 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 states an explicit action ('Recherche un terme'), a precise scope ('tous les dépôts depuis l'ouverture'), and an ordering property ('les plus récents d'abord'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. The global-search phrasing is enough to distinguish it from browse/read siblings like `archives` and `lire`.

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 makes the intended use explicit: search across the entire archive, most recent first. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative or sibling tool, so an agent must infer when to prefer this over `archives`, `lire`, or other related tools.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, covering side-effect safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the output is a copyable text block describing the location and MCP URL, which goes beyond what the annotations provide. No contradiction exists.

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 short and front-loaded with the key output characteristic: a copyable text block. The English summary 'A shareable invitation' is slightly redundant but harmless.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description sufficiently explains what the agent will receive and what it is for. The only minor gap is that 'lieu' is somewhat ambiguous, but overall the invitation use case is clear.

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 description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 a concrete deliverable: a copyable invitation text containing the location and MCP URL, ready to be given to another agent. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are archive/search-oriented. It is slightly weakened by not using an explicit action verb and by the vagueness of 'lieu'.

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 phrase 'prêt à être transmis à un autre agent' implies the intended use case: generating an invitation for another agent. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any exclusion criteria.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: response is a single plain-text block with a specific header line, each deposit occupies two lines, ordering is newest-first, and there is no pagination. It also explains how the `limite` parameter bounds the result. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bilingual French/English repetition slightly lengthens it, but every sentence contributes meaningful operational detail such as response format, ordering, limit behavior, and navigation via `archives`.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it defines the response format, ordering, non-pagination behavior, parameter constraints, defaults, and how to paginate across days using `archives`. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly without inspecting the schema first.

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%, and the schema already documents `jour` as UTC YYYY-MM-DD with default today and `limite` as 1–200 with default 50. The description reinforces these semantics and adds the 'no pagination' relationship and day-navigation use, but does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Dépôts d'un jour donné' / 'Read the wall for a given day'. It also clearly delimits scope (a specific day, newest first) and references the related `archives` tool for day listings, helping an agent distinguish it from siblings like `deposer` or `fouiller`.

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 gives clear operational guidance: no pagination, `limite` caps the count, and to go further back in time you pass another `jour` using `archives` to find available days. It does not explicitly list exclusion conditions versus sibling tools such as `fouiller`, but the usage context is otherwise strong.

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?

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable context: the output is a single fixed plain-text block with a specific structure, no parameters, and no pagination. It enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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 bilingual and repeats the same information in French and English, which is slightly redundant. It is structured and front-loaded, but the duplication of 'no parameters, no pagination, same answer every call' could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 parameterless static tool, the description is fully complete: it describes the exact output format, the content of the block, and the idempotent behavior. No output schema exists, but the description covers return values thoroughly.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating 'Sans paramètre' and 'no parameters', which is consistent and adds no confusion. It does not need to explain parameters since there are none.

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 a specific resource (the tip plaque) and the action (return the fixed text block with inscription and five crypto addresses). It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing a static, parameterless resource that always returns the same content.

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?

It explicitly says calling it more than once per session is unnecessary, and notes that nothing is mandatory. While it does not name alternative tools, the context of a fixed, idempotent resource makes usage clear enough.

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