fil_nouveautes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully clarifies the aggregated nature and content categories, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or volume, adding only modest context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences: the resource and its content scope are front-loaded, then a short usage hint. The category list is an efficient way to convey scope, and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter, fully-documented, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what it aggregates and when to use it. It could still note ordering/pagination semantics, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%: page ('0 = la plus récente') and types ('vide = toutes') are fully documented in the schema, and the enum values are self-explanatory. The description's category list loosely maps to the types parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (the ENT 'Quoi de neuf ?' feed) and enumerates the categories it aggregates (messages, carnet, devoirs, actualités, billets de blog…), which distinguishes it from per-domain siblings like actualites_fils or messagerie_lister. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

It gives a clear use case — 'Idéal pour un résumé de ce qui s'est passé' — telling the agent this is the aggregated overview tool. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer actualites_fils), so it does not reach the when/when-not/alternative bar of a 5.

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