Lire une décision Judilibre

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the returned text is pseudonymized and that metadata accompanies it, implying a read-only fetch. It does not state behavior for an unknown/invalid ID, size limits, or whether the full text can be truncated.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and the returned content, with the lookup key trailing. No filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: input is a Judilibre ID, output is full pseudonymized text plus metadata. Only edge-case behavior and ID format are missing.

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%, so the description must compensate; it identifies the parameter's meaning as a Judilibre identifier rather than an ECLI, nomer or other reference, which is real added value over a bare 'string, maxLength 300'. The exact expected format is still unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb (récupère) plus the resource (décision), the lookup key (identifiant Judilibre) and the payload (texte intégral pseudonymisé + métadonnées). It is distinguishable from the sibling search_judilibre by the ID-based retrieval framing, though it never explicitly names that contrast.

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 phrase 'à partir de son identifiant Judilibre' implies the caller must already hold an identifier, which indirectly suggests search_judilibre is the way to obtain one. However, no when-to-use/when-not statement or explicit alternative is given.

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