get_warehouse_stock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('consulter'), but it does not explain what stock means (e.g., available vs. physical), pagination behavior, or whether zero-stock items are included. This lack of detail may lead to incorrect assumptions.

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 adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about return values and parameter behavior. It does not mention pagination (despite the 'limit' parameter), response format, or inclusion criteria. The tool has limited complexity, but the description leaves critical gaps.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for 'id' (it's the warehouse, implied by 'dans un entrepôt') but does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. The description partially compensates for the schema but is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 'Consulter le stock de tous les produits dans un entrepôt' explicitly states the action (view stock) and the resource (all products in a warehouse), making it distinct from siblings like get_product_stock which targets a single product. The scope is clear and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool's usage context (when you need stock for all products in a specific warehouse), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_product_stock for a single product. The usage is implied but not contrasted with other tools.

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