simuler_retraite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists what the tool computes but does not mention any side effects, data requirements (beyond parameters), or limitations (e.g., approximations, reform applicability). This is insufficient for a simulation tool.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key features. It is front-loaded with the main simulation components and includes the 2023 reform mention, making it concise without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (4 required) and no output schema. The description provides an overview of what is simulated but lacks details on the output format, error handling, or assumptions (e.g., whether calculations are approximate). Given the moderate complexity, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 provides 100% description coverage for each parameter. The tool description does not add additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as parameter interdependencies or interpretation of values. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a simplified retirement simulation that computes base pension (CNAV), complementary pension (Agirc-Arrco), and replacement rate, accounting for the 2023 reform. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like simuler_chomage or simuler_impots which address different domains.

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?

The description implies usage for retirement simulation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., simuler_chomage). No guidance on prerequisites or conditions for effective use is provided.

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