fiche

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: output is markdown and is truncated to a 6000-character preview unless complet=True. It does not say whether the read is safe/idempotent, what an invalid or missing course does, or what happens for large courses beyond the flag.

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 with no filler; every clause carries information (format, truncation, override flag). It is terse to the point of being cryptic in places, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 no explanation, and the low-complexity read shape (2 params) is mostly covered. What is missing is any routing information relative to the many sibling tools that also expose course content.

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% with two parameters, so the description must compensate. It fully explains 'complet' (complet=True pour tout) but leaves 'cours' as an unstated identifier, only inferable from 'du cours local'.

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?

Names the concrete resource and output format ('Fiche markdown du cours local') and the scope condition ('aperçu 6000 caractères'), so an agent knows it retrieves a course's markdown summary rather than a listing or generation. No verb and no explicit differentiation from siblings like detail_cours or cartes, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is only implied: 'cours local' hints at local (already-generated) course content, and the 6000-character preview plus the complet flag suggest when to ask for the full version. It never states when to prefer this over detail_cours, cartes, or deposer_fichier, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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