Catalogue des codes d'historique

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it is a reference catalog meant to guide subsequent writes, and it discloses the fallback logic and examples of applicable codes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentence, but every element earns its place: the purpose, the timing, the precision requirement, concrete examples, and the fallback rule. It is front-loaded with the key instruction and avoids 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 zero-parameter, read-only catalog tool, the description is complete. It explains why the catalog exists, when to use it, how to choose a code, and what to do when no code fits. Even without an output schema, the agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's content and usage rather than parameter details, which would be irrelevant here.

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 this as a catalog of history codes and explicitly states its purpose: to be read before writing history entries. It distinguishes itself from writing tools like addSiteHistorique by framing itself as a prerequisite reference, and provides concrete examples of codes to make the resource unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: consult this catalog before writing history. It also provides a decision procedure: select the most precise code, and if none fits, fall back to a generic code and describe the modification. This is actionable and leaves no ambiguity about how to apply the tool.

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