Récupère le contenu complet d'un guide de constat-auto.com à partir de l'identifiant renvoyé par search. Renvoie un document JSON avec id, titre, URL et texte.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identifiant du document renvoyé par `search`. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds concrete behavior by specifying the return JSON structure (id, titre, URL, texte) and 'contenu complet', which is not covered by annotations.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the purpose and input source, the second states the output format. No filler or repetition.
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 simple parameter tool with clear annotations and a detailed parameter schema, the description sufficiently explains the action, input, and return value. It does not need to cover error cases or elaborate formatting.
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?
The schema already provides a full description for the single parameter `id` (Identifiant du document renvoyé par `search`), and the tool description merely restates this relationship without adding further semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies.
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 verb 'Récupère' (fetches) and the resource 'guide de constat-auto.com' using an identifier from `search`. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that it retrieves full guide content for a document ID, not constat-related operations.
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?
It explicitly says the identifier must come from `search`, indicating that this tool should be used after a search to retrieve full content. It names the source of the ID, effectively providing a prerequisite, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or 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.
Each constat_* tool corresponds to a distinct phase of the accident statement workflow—starting, filling, sketching, signing, status checking, finalizing, canceling—with no two tools overlapping in purpose. The two guide-related tools (search, fetch) are clearly separate from the workflow tools.
The constat_ prefix provides a recognizable pattern, but the suffix alternates between verbs (demarrer, renseigner, finaliser, annuler) and nouns (circonstances, croquis, signatures, statut, assureurs). Additionally, the two guide tools (fetch, search) break the pattern entirely, mixing languages and conventions.
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: each tool serves a clear step in the constat process and the two guide tools complement the primary workflow without redundancy. The count is within the ideal 3–15 range and does not feel heavy or thin.
The workflow is well covered: start, fill, sketch, sign, monitor status, finalize, and cancel. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated 'get full constat contents' tool (statut only shows missing fields and signature state), but the core lifecycle is otherwise complete.
