code_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'coloration syntaxique' (syntax highlighting) and 'division automatique si trop long' (automatic splitting if too long), which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., a message in the channel). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes key behavioral traits (syntax highlighting, automatic splitting), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential 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 the complexity of a tool that displays code in a channel, the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided to cover safety or behavioral aspects, and there's no output schema to describe the result. The description mentions syntax highlighting and splitting, but lacks details on permissions, errors, or visual output. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured support, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use 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 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (channelId, code, language). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples for language values or formatting tips. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's function: 'Affiche du code avec coloration syntaxique et division automatique si trop long' (Displays code with syntax highlighting and automatic splitting if too long). It specifies the verb 'affiche' (displays) and the resource 'code', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'envoyer_message' or 'creer_embed', which might also involve displaying content in channels.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid channel ID, or compare it to other display tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'envoyer_message' for general messages, 'creer_embed' for rich embeds). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose appropriately between similar tools.

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