Soluble(s) — Podcast de journalisme de solutions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool finds/list existing episodes with Junior versions. It also discloses the expectation of short keyword extraction and the empty-query behavior, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is moderately sized but well-structured: it leads with the main action, then target audience, then an 'IMPORTANT' note with specific usage instructions. Every sentence contributes value, though it is slightly verbose with the repeated audience enumeration.

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 search/list tool with no output schema, the description explains what it finds (episodes with Junior versions) and how to query it effectively. It does not describe the return format, but given the simplicity and the read-only annotation, this is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 50% (query has a description, limit does not). The description reinforces query semantics by repeating the 1-3 keyword guidance and the 'leave empty' option, which adds value. However, it does not clarify the 'limit' parameter's meaning or default behavior, leaving a gap. Coverage is partially compensated but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trouve') and resource ('épisodes Soluble(s) en version Junior'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that search for solutions or actions. It defines what 'version Junior' means, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 states when to use this tool: for parents, teachers, youth animators, or to vulgarize a subject for children, and even says 'c'est cet outil qu'il faut utiliser' for pedagogical content for 6-12 year olds. It also gives specific input guidance (extract 1-3 keywords, leave query empty to list all), which is actionable and clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the keyword-format constraint (1-3 keywords, never a full sentence), which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose return behavior or other traits.

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 concise sentences with the key instruction highlighted via 'IMPORTANT' and front-loaded examples. Zero waste.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and parsing rules, but lacks guidance on tool selection and return value expectations, especially without an output schema.

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 covers the parameter format with examples. The description adds the explicit prohibition against full sentences, going beyond the schema's description.

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?

Description states a clear verb+resource: 'Recherche des solutions basées sur un besoin utilisateur'. It conveys the tool searches for solutions based on a need, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search 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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings (e.g., search_solutions_concretes). The IMPORTANT note only addresses input formatting, not tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the tool returns 'uniquement' (only) concrete actions in 'format checklist' (checklist format), which clarifies output shape and filtering behavior. It does not discuss edge cases, pagination, or limit behavior, but the added value is meaningful.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence immediately states the action and output format, and the second sentence adds a clear use case. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only extraction tool with one required parameter, the description covers the purpose, output format, and intended use case, making it largely complete. However, it omits any clarification of how `limit` affects results and what the checklist items look like (e.g., are they short phrases, titles, etc.), so it is not fully complete.

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 description does not mention or explain the `query` or `limit` parameters. The input schema describes `query` well (1 to 3 short keywords with examples), but `limit` has no description, only a default value. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented `limit` parameter but does not, leaving its meaning ambiguous.

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 action: 'Extrait uniquement la liste des actions concrètes liées à un sujet' (extracts only the list of concrete actions related to a topic), identifies the output format (checklist), and gives a specific use case ('créer des guides pratiques'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling solution-search tools by focusing specifically on concrete actions rather than solutions or opinions.

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 phrase 'Idéal pour créer des guides pratiques' provides clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns the most recent episodes, which is useful context, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or return format details beyond that.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and read-only annotations. The description conveys the core function, but the absence of an output schema means the return structure isn't defined. It also doesn't clarify what 'épisodes' are in this context, though that may be inferred from sibling tools.

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 input schema has a single 'limit' parameter with a default of 5, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's type/default. The agent is left to infer what 'limit' controls.

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 uses a specific verb ('affiche' = displays) and resource ('les épisodes les plus récents de Soluble(s)'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that search, recommend, or find solutions. It answers what the tool does with clarity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to siblings like search_solutions_concretes or recommend_solutions. It only states its function, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, and the description's 'Recommande' is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds the notion of user context/profile but does not disclose any additional behavioral details like return format, ordering, or limitations. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, clear sentence that communicates the core functionality without waste. It is well-structured, front-loads the action and resource, and avoids extraneous detail.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and input condition, but it omits the 'limit' parameter and does not describe what the output looks like (e.g., a list of episodes). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool, so it is not fully complete.

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 50%: the 'context' parameter has a description in the schema, but 'limit' has none. The tool description repeats the context examples from the schema but does not explain the meaning or effect of 'limit' (e.g., maximum number of recommendations). This leaves a key parameter underspecified, failing to compensate for the schema's gap.

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 recommends Soluble episodes based on user context or profile, giving concrete examples (parent, teacher, activist, company). It uses a specific verb 'Recommande' and identifies the resource, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like find_solutions_for_need or search_solutions_concretes, though the profile-based recommendation angle is implied.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a user context or profile is known (e.g., parent, teacher, activist, company). It implies a recommendation use case rather than a general search. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what is searched (titles, transcriptions, actions, needs) but does not go deeper into result behavior, pagination, or rate limits. This is consistent with the annotations and adds some value beyond them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words. Every part adds value, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 2-parameter search tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and search scope. It falls short on explaining the limit parameter's behavior and result format, but the overall context is reasonably complete for a search utility.

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 50%, with query documented in the schema. The tool description clarifies what the query matches against (titles, transcriptions, actions, needs), but the 'limit' parameter lacks any description in both schema and tool description. This partial coverage leaves a clear gap in parameter semantics.

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 performs a global search across all Soluble APIs, combining titles, transcriptions, actions, and needs. The verb 'recherche' and resource 'toutes les APIs Soluble(s)' make the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like search_solutions_concretes, which are narrower in scope.

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 implies use for broad cross-API searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus more specific sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the context indirectly inferred rather than clearly guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the global search scope and the keyword constraint, which is useful context but does not disclose further behavioral details like result count or pagination. This is consistent with the TDQS 4.3 baseline.

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: a single action phrase plus an important usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical instruction is clearly highlighted with 'IMPORTANT'. No waste or redundancy.

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 one-parameter search tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the purpose, usage scope, and parameter constraints. It lacks explicit return format or pagination details, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers the parameter fully with description '1 à 3 mots-clés courts (ex: ...)'. The tool description repeats this and adds the rationale ('ne jamais envoyer une phrase complète'), but the added value over the schema is minimal, justifying the baseline 3.

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 performs a global search in titles and transcriptions of solutions, with a specific verb ('Recherche') and resource ('titres et transcriptions'). It provides examples and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on this search scope rather than recommendation or need-based lookup.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use 1–3 short keywords, never a full sentence, with examples. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, but the contextual instruction is strong and directly improves invocation correctness.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.