checkup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing that clean=true also wipes application caches "sans perte de données," which flags a state-changing side effect. It says nothing about permissions required, runtime, whether the scan itself is read-only, or how results are surfaced, which is thin for a mutation-capable tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 dense sentences, no filler, with the diagnostic scope stated first and the flag semantics second. The long comma-delimited list of audited areas is efficient rather than padded.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only structured information available. It adequately covers scope and the one parameter, but omits how the report is returned and whether the scan triggers anything beyond cache clearing, leaving an agent slightly under-informed for a device-wide operation.

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 0% (the sole parameter has only a title and default), so the description must supply the meaning — and it does: clean=true additionally clears app caches, with the reassurance of no data loss. The implicit clean=false default behavior (diagnose only) is conveyed by the wording, though not spelled out.

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?

"Bilan du téléphone" plus an explicit enumeration of the audited areas (système, correctif de sécurité, batterie, stockage, mémoire, applications hors magasins, débogage sans fil, accessibilité) tells an agent concretely what the tool inspects. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as info, phone, or settings, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 implied — this is the broad diagnostic sweep you run to get an overall device report — but the description never states when to prefer it over info, phone, or settings, nor any prerequisite (permissions, device connected). The only guidance offered is the conditional effect of the clean flag.

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