fiche_list

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

The description adds the 'validated' filter and the output format 'slugs', which is useful behavioral context beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explain what 'validated' means, whether pagination exists, or any ordering behavior. This is adequate but minimal.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is informative; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential behavior (listing validated fiches) and hints at the output format. It is sufficiently complete for a simple list operation, though it lacks any caveats or usage scenarios beyond the bare description.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description mentions 'slugs' as output, not input. According to the baseline for zero-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('validated fiches'), and specifies the output type as 'slugs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fiche_read and fiche_write, which involve reading or writing individual fiches.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like case_list or fiche_read. It merely states what it does, leaving usage entirely implied.

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