infer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Calcule les sorties', implying a non-destructive computation, but does not describe return value format, error handling, or backend behavior (e.g., what happens if R is unavailable).

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 compact and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a concise args list. No redundant or irrelevant content; every sentence earns its place.

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 inference tool with three parameters, the description covers purpose and all parameters, including the backend default. However, it does not describe the output format or error scenarios, though the output is implied by 'sorties'. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail on the return value would improve completeness, but it is mostly sufficient.

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 fully explains each parameter beyond the bare schema names: 'path: chemin du fichier .fis', 'inputs: une valeur par entrée, dans l'ordre déclaré dans le fichier', and 'backend: "auto" (R si disponible), "r" ou "python"'. This adds critical meaning about input ordering and backend options, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Calcule les sorties du système flou pour un vecteur d'entrées' identifies a specific verb (Calcule), resource (système flou), and scope (vecteur d'entrées). This clearly differentiates from the sibling 'infer_dataset' by explicitly focusing on a single input vector.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'infer_dataset' or 'explain_inference'. The description lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage only from the parameter list.

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