QUAND un résultat vous semble faux, incomplet, ou qu'un endpoint plante. Gratuit, sans quota, toujours ouvert. Envoyer un retour / suggestion pour améliorer l'application Synergieloc (remarque sur un outil, un calcul, une idée de fonctionnalité, un bug). N'utilise aucune unité et reste disponible même hors fenêtre gratuite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Optionnel : outil/endpoint concerné. | |
| message | Yes | Votre retour, en clair. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, has no quota, is always open, and consumes no units. These are important behavioral traits for an AI agent to know. It does not detail consequences (e.g., storage of feedback) but that is reasonable for a feedback tool.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the usage condition, then provides key details (free, quota-free, always open). Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage conditions, availability, and parameter roles comprehensively. No obvious gaps.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The main description adds context that 'message' is for the feedback in plain text and 'context' is optional indicating the concerned tool/endpoint. This adds some meaning beyond the schema but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.
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 explicitly states the tool sends feedback (retour/suggestion) for the Synergieloc application, covering remarks on tools, calculations, feature ideas, and bugs. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are specific operational actions (e.g., annonce_location, avenant_revision_irl).
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 starts with 'QUAND un résultat vous semble faux, incomplet, ou qu'un endpoint plante', providing clear conditions for use. It also notes the tool is free, no quota, always open, and works even outside free windows. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives.
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.
