conformite_artisan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states that this is a POST request to create a conformity checklist and lists the document types involved. It does not hide any major side effects, though it does not specify whether the operation is read-only or creates a persistent record; however, the POST verb implies creation.

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 relatively concise but contains redundancy: the checklist items (RC Pro, décennale, URSSAF, KBIS) are mentioned twice. The endpoint and parameter hint are included, which adds useful structure. Overall, it is fairly efficient.

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 description provides the trigger scenario, endpoint, and parameter explanations, which gives decent context. However, there is no output schema, so the agent cannot anticipate the response format. Additionally, the exact structure of the 'pieces' objects is only partially specified, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

All six parameters have descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. However, there is an inconsistency: the tool description lists 'RC Pro' as a checklist item, while the 'pieces' parameter description mentions 'RGE' instead of 'RC Pro'. This could confuse an agent about which document types are expected. The 'pieces' items are only described as objects without a defined schema, though the tool description provides some structure ({type, statut, numero, date_expiration}).

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's purpose: verify that an artisan is compliant (RC Pro, décennale, URSSAF, KBIS) before assigning a worksite. It names the endpoint and the checklist items, making the function unambiguous. No sibling tool has a similar purpose, so it is well-distinguished.

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 begins with 'QUAND' (When), explicitly indicating the condition for using this tool (before entrusting a worksite to an artisan). It does not mention alternatives, but given the lack of similar sibling tools, the guidance is sufficient. The trigger scenario is clear.

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