demo_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write or setup action inside the vault, but it does not say whether it modifies existing content, is reversible, requires permissions, or is idempotent.

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 no filler, and the action verb is front-loaded. It is well-sized for a no-parameter tool, though the unexplained term 'demo visit' keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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?

The calling complexity is low because there are no parameters and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility. However, the description leaves 'demo visit' undefined and does not disclose vault side effects, making it only minimally complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is effectively complete for an empty schema, so there is nothing extra the description must explain. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a concrete action ('Génère') and identifies the resource ('la visite demo') and location ('dans le vault'), so an agent can tell this is a demo-generation tool. It does not explicitly compare itself with siblings like demo_remove, which prevents a top score.

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 guidance about when to use demo_generate, what conditions call for it, or how it relates to demo_remove or other demo-related tools. Any usage inference comes only from the tool name and the generic phrase.

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