cartes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one meaningful trait: the complete JSON is written into `destination` when that argument is supplied. It says nothing about permissions, what happens when `destination` is omitted, or whether the operation mutates local state.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the resource is front-loaded ahead of the conditional write behavior. It is efficient, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the definition still omits the tool's core action and when it applies. For a two-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, an agent cannot confidently decide to call this over fiche or detail_cours.

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% for two parameters. The description clarifies `destination` functionally (full JSON written there when provided) but says nothing about `cours`, the required parameter — for example whether it is a course identifier, slug, or path.

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 resource ('cartes de révision du cours local') but leaves the verb ambiguous — it is unclear whether it retrieves, generates, or formats flashcards. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like detail_cours, fiche, or lancer_generation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of which sibling to pick for a related task. The only context given is a conditional about writing output, which is behavioral rather than usage-oriented.

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