cahier_lire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result: day-by-day entries with each work's identifier and whether it is marked done. No output schema exists, so this return-content disclosure is meaningful.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource first, then the scope, then the per-item payload. It is dense but earns its length by conveying both scope and return 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, optional date filtering, and the essential return shape. It omits only minor details such as ordering or handling of empty date bounds, which the schema's 67% coverage partly absorbs.

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 67%: "id" is well described, and depuis/jusqu_au carry format (AAAA-MM-JJ) documentation in the schema. The description's contribution is limited to signalling that the date range is optional ("éventuellement"), which partially overlaps the schema's default:null. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ("Lit un cahier de texte") and specifies the scope of what is returned (work per day, optional date range, identifier and done-status per item). It is distinguishable from siblings like cahier_lister and cahier_marquer, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative tools such as cahier_lister (listing notebooks) or cahier_marquer. The phrase "éventuellement entre deux dates" hints at the optional filter but frames a parameter, not a tool-selection rule.

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