consulter_absences

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

The verb 'Récupère' implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations and no mention of authorization, scope limits, or possible side effects, there is limited behavioral transparency. The description adds some value by signaling the read-only nature, but does not go further.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, object, and scope without any filler. Ideal conciseness for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple single-parameter lookup, the description provides enough context: it specifies the data type and target. It does not mention return format or whether filtering is applied, but the tool's simplicity makes the description sufficiently 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 only parameter, studentId, is fully documented in the schema with a description referencing lister_eleves. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Récupère') and names the exact resource ('absences, retards et sanctions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like consulter_notes or consulter_devoirs. No ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 makes the usage context clear: retrieve disciplinary/tracking data for a student. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus the sibling tools.

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