Lister un référentiel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves real IDs (not hardcoded) and mentions plugin dependencies for some referential kinds. However, it does not describe the output format, pagination, or whether the call has side effects (though reading is safe). Lacks details on what data the response contains.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then providing key usage guidance and constraints. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential: purpose, when to use, plugin caveats, and the nature of the output (real IDs). It is largely complete for a list tool, though specifying the response structure (e.g., array of objects) would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'kind' with an enum and description. The description adds meaning by explaining that the tool returns actual instance IDs/values and that some kinds require a plugin. This goes beyond the schema's simple enumeration.

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 tool lists a referential with a specific verb 'Liste' and resource 'un référentiel', enumerates the 11 possible kinds, and emphasizes it retrieves real IDs/values. This distinguishes it from other tools that create/update tickets.

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?

Explicitly says 'À utiliser avant de créer/mettre à jour un ticket', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also notes plugin requirements for some kinds. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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