QUAND il faut rendre compte de l'avancement d'un chantier au client. Compte-rendu d'avancement (app Chantier IA). POST /api/v1/documents/compte-rendu-chantier. points[] = {libelle, statut, notes}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| titre | Yes | ||
| points | No | ||
| risques | No | ||
| client_nom | No | ||
| date_visite | No | ||
| date_emission | No | ||
| entreprise_nom | No | ||
| pct_avancement | No | ||
| prochaine_etape | No | ||
| adresse_chantier | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the HTTP POST method and endpoint, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation is safe. This is minimal 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, at four lines, and front-loaded with the usage condition. However, it lacks clear separation between purpose, endpoint, and parameter details. Still, it is not verbose.
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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains only one parameter and does not mention return values, examples, or handling of optional fields.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'points' array structure ({libelle, statut, notes}). The remaining 9 parameters (e.g., titre, client_nom) are left unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with 10 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 states the tool's purpose: generating a progress report for a construction site to the client. It specifies the API endpoint and the structure of the 'points' array, making it distinct from sibling tools like 'bon_intervention' or 'devis_travaux'.
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 begins with 'QUAND il faut rendre compte' (when you need to report), providing clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.
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 by purpose (e.g., quittance_loyer vs relance_impaye, or relance_facture_client vs relance_impaye). A few pairs like bon_intervention and fiche_mission could cause confusion, but detailed descriptions help resolve ambiguity.
Tool names mix French and English, and use inconsistent patterns: some are noun-based (annonce_location, quittance_loyer), some verb-based (decide_campagne, obtenir_cle_api), and the cao_* tools use a prefix convention. Still readable but not uniform.
41 tools is excessive for most servers, even one covering real estate and CAD. While the breadth is justified by multiple subdomains, the sheer number makes the surface hard to navigate and suggests possible over-fragmentation.
The tool set covers a wide range: rental lifecycle (annonce, EDL, quittance, relance), owner reporting, artisan documents, fiscal synthesis, CAD generation and verification, outreach, and guides. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tenant/property CRUD), but for a document-generation server it is quite complete.
