list_interventions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the meaning of status codes, but does not explain pagination behavior, default limits, output format, or any side effects. For a read-only list operation, this is minimal information.

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 with an equally concise status legend. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and the status codes are directly relevant to a common filter. No filler words 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must provide substantial context. It only covers status values, leaving pagination, filtering, and return structure entirely unexplained. The agent would have to guess about pagination and response format.

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 should compensate. It explains the status parameter by mapping numeric values to human-readable states, but it does not explain the other four parameters (page, limit, sqlfilters, thirdparty_id). This partial coverage 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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Lister les fiches d'intervention' (List intervention sheets). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_intervention (retrieve a single intervention) and create_intervention (create a new one).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_intervention is for retrieving a single record or that other list tools exist. The status code legend gives some filtering context but does not clarify usage scenarios or exclusions.

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