aide_caf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that estimates are approximate, depend on actual CAF rules, or that the tool does not access real-time data. This lack of transparency could mislead users about reliability.

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 sentences efficiently convey the main action and a secondary purpose. Front-loaded with the core estimation task. Could be slightly more concise by omitting 'Fournit les démarches à effectuer' if not essential, but overall well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (estimated amounts, eligibility status, or steps). With 8 parameters and only 3 required, the description fails to guide on when optional fields are necessary, leaving gaps for effective use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only lists example aids. It does not clarify how parameters map to specific estimates or optional fields like 'autresRevenus' and 'zoneAPL' are needed.

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 estimates CAF aids (prime d'activité, allocations familiales, APL) and provides steps to take. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling simulations like 'simuler_aides_logement' or 'simuler_chomage', which overlap in purpose but target different aid types.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description implies usage for CAF aid estimation but does not provide context for when not to use or mention prerequisites like having specific personal information ready.

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