describe_fis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool describes a system, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, mention side effects, or describe error handling (e.g., missing file). The operational behavior of reading a file is only implied via the parameter description.

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, using a single sentence for the core purpose and a structured Args block for parameters. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while conveying essential information. The structure is easy to parse, though the Args block partially duplicates schema 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameters, but lacks details about the return value format (though 'en clair' hints at human-readable output). It also does not situate the tool within its sibling set, missing an opportunity to clarify when this description is needed versus other FIS-related operations.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by providing clear meanings for both parameters: 'path' is the .fis file path and 'include_rules' indicates whether to include the list of rules in French. This goes beyond the schema's bare titles and types, though it doesn't mention the default value for include_rules.

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 purpose: 'Décrit un système' (describes a system) and enumerates the specific components covered: variables, fuzzy partitions, operators, and rules in plain language. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'infer' or 'list_fis' which serve different functions.

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 versus alternatives. It implies usage through the 'path' argument but does not mention exclusion criteria or conditions under which other tools (e.g., explain_inference, validate_fis) would be more appropriate.

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