QUAND un artisan chiffre des travaux avant accord du client. Devis travaux (app Factures). HTML ; PDF via POST /api/v1/documents/devis-travaux. lignes[] = {libelle, quantite, prix_unitaire, tva}. Puis facture_facturx.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lieu | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| objet | No | ||
| lignes | Yes | ||
| numero | No | ||
| validite | No | ||
| client_nom | No | ||
| date_emission | No | ||
| client_adresse | No | ||
| entreprise_nom | No | ||
| entreprise_adresse | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the API endpoint for PDF generation and the 'lignes' structure, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what errors may occur.
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 but mixes French and English, includes an endpoint reference and parameter examples, yet lacks clear formatting or prioritization of key information.
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 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the tool’s purpose and one parameter’s structure, leaving significant gaps in input, output, and behavior.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description documents the structure of the 'lignes' parameter with fields {libelle, quantite, prix_unitaire, tva}. Other parameters like 'lieu', 'notes', 'objet' are left unexplained, providing partial but useful clarification.
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 is for creating a work estimate ('devis travaux') when a craftsman estimates work before client agreement. It distinguishes from invoices by mentioning 'Puis facture_facturx', though not explicitly differentiating from all sibling tools.
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?
Provides a usage context ('QUAND un artisan chiffre des travaux avant accord du client') and hints at a follow-up tool ('facture_facturx'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the 36 sibling tools.
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.
