Méthode viraldar

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds that omitting `reference` returns the whole method while supplying it returns one reference — useful behavioral context. It does not disclose format, length, or language of the returned content, so beyond the annotation it is only moderately informative.

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?

Two tight sentences with the read-first instruction front-loaded and the parameter behavior second. The phrasing 'sinon une de ses références' is slightly compressed but no sentence is wasted.

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 single-optional-parameter documentation tool with no output schema, the definition covers when to call it and what the parameter selects. It leaves open what the returned method actually contains and in what form, which an agent orchestrating a content workflow would benefit from knowing.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning: it explains that no `reference` yields the full method and a `reference` yields that specific sub-document. The eight enum values are left unexplained, but their names (accroches, brief, calendrier) are largely self-evident in context.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'la méthode à suivre pour créer du contenu TikTok avec viraldar', which tells an agent this is a guidance/methodology fetch rather than a content action, distinguishing it from siblings like montage_* or post. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

'À lire avant de proposer une stratégie, un brief ou un contenu' gives a clear precondition for use, which is strong guidance for a workflow-order tool. It does not name alternatives or state when to skip it, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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