QUAND un artisan prépare une intervention ou un chantier. Fiche mission / chantier (app Missions). HTML ; PDF via POST /api/v1/documents/fiche-mission. Dossier local — pas d'accès au portail SaaS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lieu | No | ||
| titre | Yes | ||
| budget | No | ||
| etapes | No | ||
| statut | No | ||
| echeance | No | ||
| reference | No | ||
| client_nom | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| intervenant | No | ||
| date_emission | No | ||
| client_adresse | No | ||
| entreprise_nom | No | ||
| adresse_chantier | No | ||
| entreprise_adresse | No |
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 local folder storage and the ability to generate HTML or PDF via a separate endpoint, but lacks details on authentication, side effects, or whether it saves to disk. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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—one sentence plus context notes—and front-loaded with the use case. It avoids verbosity, though it could be better organized (e.g., listing parameters or prerequisites).
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 15 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It provides a high-level purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, return value, or prerequisites, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation.
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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It only mentions 'titre' as required without explaining its purpose or format. This completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 creates a mission/worksheet (fiche mission/chantier) when a craftsman prepares an intervention or worksite. It specifies output formats (HTML, PDF via another endpoint) and local storage, distinguishing it from sibling document 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?
The description explicitly says 'QUAND un artisan prépare une intervention ou un chantier,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling list makes the context clear.
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.
