Auditer les références

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered without the text. The description adds real behavioral content by disclosing the exact defect taxonomy the audit reports, which is more than the annotations provide. It still omits practical traits such as whether the whole project is scanned, whether external databases are queried for 'introuvables', and any runtime or quota expectations.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the verb 'Contrôle', so nothing is wasted. However it is a single comma-spliced fragment with no sentence structure, which makes the list of defect classes slightly harder to parse than a properly formed sentence would be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the low-complexity single-parameter signature keeps the bar modest. What is missing is the caller-side context: which project references are audited, how this differs from find_uncited_references or final_quality_audit, and what the agent should do with the findings.

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?

Only one parameter (project_id) exists and the schema gives it 0% description coverage, so the description should carry the burden of explaining it. The description says nothing about project_id — not its format, nor that it scopes the entire audit. With a single obvious parameter, the practical cost is small, hence 3 rather than lower.

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 names an audit ('Contrôle') and enumerates the specific defect classes it surfaces: citations without sources, hand-written citations, never-cited sources, incomplete/suspicious/unfindable/divergent records, and duplicates. This makes the scope of the reference audit concrete. It falls short of 5 because it never explicitly states the resource (references of a given project) nor distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling find_uncited_references, which covers one of the listed checks.

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; the text is purely a list of what gets checked. Nothing tells the agent whether to run this before generate_bibliography, instead of find_uncited_references, or as part of final_quality_audit. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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