devis_travaux

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose output formats ('HTML ; PDF via POST /api/v1/documents/devis-travaux') and the expected line-item shape. However, it does not mention persistence, side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens after document generation, which is relevant for a document-creation tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the trigger condition. Every clause contributes: purpose, output format, line structure, and next workflow step. The telegraphic style with semicolons and inline notation reduces readability, but there is no wasted content.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 11 parameters, and many related document/invoice siblings, the description provides the essential workflow, trigger, and format pointers, while the schema covers parameter semantics. It is adequate for a first call, but it remains silent on response shape, error conditions, and authorization, and the 'PDF via POST' relationship is ambiguous without further detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by specifying the exact line-item structure ('lignes[] = {libelle, quantite, prix_unitaire, tva}'), including TVA, which the schema's generic 'Postes chiffrés' description does not enumerate. It does not add detail for the other parameters, but their schema descriptions are already sufficiently specific.

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 states the tool's function in its first clause: an artisan chiffre des travaux before client agreement, producing a 'Devis travaux'. It also associates the tool with the Factures app and distinguishes it from the follow-up invoice via 'Puis facture_facturx'. It is somewhat telegraphic but the verb, resource, and scope are identifiable.

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 explicitly opens with 'QUAND un artisan chiffre des travaux avant accord du client', which gives a clear trigger condition. 'Puis facture_facturx' also signals the workflow stage and names the natural next sibling tool. It stops short of explicitly stating when-not-to-use or enumerating alternatives, so it is not a full 5.

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