fiche_read

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

No annotations are available, and the description offers no behavioral details such as what happens for invalid or unvalidated slugs, authentication requirements, or return value characteristics. The term 'validated' is ambiguous.

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 sentence and is concise, but it may be under-specified. It does include the qualifier 'validated' which adds some meaning, though not enough.

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 the presence of an output schema, return values are not required in the description, but there is no context about what a fiche is, what 'validated' means, or error behavior. It lacks completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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 single parameter 'slug' is undocumented in the schema, and the description only mentions 'by slug' without explaining the format, source, or validation constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 tool reads a fiche by slug, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fiche_list or case_get, though the resource type is distinct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fiche_list or case_get. The implied usage is when a specific validated fiche slug is known, but no exclusions or comparison are provided.

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