Propose a candidate file organization rule from an observed destination, enabling validation before adding it to your rule set.
Propose une règle candidate à faire valider, à partir d'une destination observée.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contexte | No | ||
| sessionID | No | ||
| destination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does 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 states the action but does not explain whether proposing a rule persists anything, triggers validation, requires prior setup, or returns a result. This is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether invocation is safe or appropriate.
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 short sentence with the core action front-loaded. It is concise and readable, though it achieves conciseness by omitting useful details rather than by packing meaning efficiently.
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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a set of siblings, a single clause is insufficient. The agent lacks guidance on parameter semantics, side effects, return behavior, and when to use this tool compared to related ones.
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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds some meaning for 'destination' (an observed destination), but says nothing about 'contexte' or 'sessionID', leaving two of three parameters entirely unexplained.
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 has a specific verb ('propose'), a specific resource ('règle candidate'), and names the input context ('destination observée'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like lister_regles and memoriser_regle by indicating it proposes a rule for validation rather than resolving, listing, or storing one, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.
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 'à partir d'une destination observée' implies the tool should be used when a destination has been observed and a candidate rule needs validation. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over resoudre_destination or memoriser_regle, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.