decrire_etat_corpusExpose les versions, bornes, compteurs, retards, limites, alvéoles et garde-fou qualité actuellement déclarés par BRANCO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral nuance with 'actuellement déclarés', suggesting a point-in-time snapshot, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as caching, cost, or potential staleness.
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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then gives a dense but complete list of output categories. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool, the description is complete: it identifies the subject, the output categories, and the snapshot-like nature of the result. An output schema exists to carry return-value details, so the description does not need to explain them.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by enumerating the kinds of state information the tool returns, which gives an agent a useful sense of what to expect even though no input parameters need explanation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Expose') and names the resource ('l'état des corpus') plus the concrete data categories it returns (versions, bornes, compteurs, retards, limites, alvéoles, garde-fou qualité). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search and citation-verification tools, which serve different purposes.
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 this is the tool to call when an agent needs a current snapshot of BRANCO's corpus state, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the siblings or when not to use it. The usage context is inferable from the tool's purpose but not articulated.
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.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct operation: describing corpus state, searching criminal circulars, and verifying citations in text. There is no meaningful overlap between these responsibilities.
All tool names follow the same verb_object snake_case pattern in French: decrire_etat_corpus, rechercher_circulaires_penales, verifier_citation. The naming is consistent and predictable.
Three tools is a well-scoped count for a narrow legal research and citation checking server. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or excessive surface area.
The core read-oriented workflow is covered: understanding corpus state, searching circulars, and verifying citations. However, there is no direct tool to retrieve a full circular document from a search result or to manage/update the corpus, leaving minor gaps.