rbcd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral detail. It does not disclose that the tool executes a predefined Cypher query, whether it is read-only, or what the output shape is. The note 'requête vérifiée' is vague and does not inform about side effects or return values.

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 extremely concise, using only a noun phrase and a parenthetical note. It contains no redundant language, but the fragmentary structure and French phrase may reduce clarity for non-French speakers.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the tool is incomplete. It conveys the domain concept (RBCD) but omits critical context about execution, customization, and expected results. The defaults for both parameters are not explained, leaving an agent to infer behavior.

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 entirely ignores the parameters 'k' and 'cy'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it remains silent. The only hints are the defaults in the schema, which are not explained.

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 identifies the tool as handling 'Resource-based constrained delegation (AllowedToAct)', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'constrained_delegation' and 'unconstrained_delegation'. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'lists' or 'finds'), so the action the tool performs must be inferred from context.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'constrained_delegation' or 'run_cypher'. The phrase 'requête vérifiée' (verified query) does not provide usage context or prerequisites.

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