Contrôler la mise en forme

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the comparison baseline is a template, defaulting to the project's own template, and it discloses the exact set of rules evaluated. It does not say whether findings are advisory or blocking, nor how deviations are reported.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with the enumerated rules forming a tight appositive list. Every item in the list is informative rather than filler. Minor cost: the long enumeration makes the sentence dense, but nothing is redundant.

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 tool is a simple read-only two-parameter check with an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the comparison target, its default, and the checked rules, which is essentially everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the precondition on document_id and the advisory-vs-blocking nature of results remain unstated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain 'preset' indirectly by saying the template defaults to the project one, which tells the agent the parameter is optional and what omitting it does. document_id is left to inference (the file must be an imported .docx), and no format or example for a custom preset string is given.

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 uses a specific verb ('Contrôle') and a specific resource ('un fichier Word (.docx) importé'), then enumerates the exact formatting dimensions verified (font, size, line spacing, indent, alignment, margins, page numbering, final period in headings). This is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of naming a sibling such as apply_formatting to draw the check-vs-apply distinction explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'importé' (the file must already be in the project) and by the default template reference. There is no statement of when to prefer this over check_consistency, check_document_structure, or check_language, and no mention of prerequisites or of what to do when the check fails.

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