historique

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read-only listing, whether results are scoped to the local server ('locaux' hints at it but is unexplained), how results are ordered, or whether the output is paginated or truncated by 'limite'.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource list, with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is close to under-specification, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition is too thin for a two-parameter history tool. An agent still lacks the result shape, ordering/pagination behavior, and any hint of access prerequisites or scope limits.

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 0% and no enums are declared, but the description does add real meaning by naming the three accepted values for 'type' (runs, backups, plans) — information the schema does not supply. It says nothing about 'limite' (default 20), leaving the second parameter undocumented anywhere.

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 verb is specific ('Lister') and the enumerated resource set is explicit: runs, backups, or plans, with French/English glosses that remove ambiguity. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as 'journal_execution' or 'consulter_plan', so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when this listing differs from those lookups.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite several plausible overlapping siblings (journal_execution, consulter_plan, diagnostic). At best the reader infers that the 'type' argument selects which category is listed, which is implication rather than guidance.

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