dosare_c168_prefill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains that the tool prefills and lists missing items and attachable files, which implies a read-only operation without explicitly stating it. It does not mention side effects or mutation, but the wording ('prefilled', 'lists') strongly suggests no write action. It adds useful context about Storno's rule issues and the specific gaps (nomenclator codes, CNP), which is helpful for the agent.

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 two sentences but packs a lot of information: source, action types, what is listed as missing, the next steps, and attachable files. It is reasonably concise, though the phrase 'Storno's rule issues' is a bit opaque and could be clarified. Still, every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 description covers the input source (rental-contract dosar and company), the action types, the output (prefill, missing items, attachable files), and the follow-up workflow. It lacks an explicit statement of return format or error conditions, but for a prefill tool that is not creating anything, this is adequate. The lack of an output schema makes the description's mention of 'lists' essential and it does mention that.

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 67% (id and companyId have descriptions, actiune only has an enum). The description adds context by referencing the action types (registration/amendment/termination) and the source (rental-contract dosar and company), but it doesn't elaborate on parameter syntax or defaults beyond what the schema already says. It provides a moderate lift over the schema.

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 states it prefills the C168 input from a rental-contract dosar and company, and lists what's missing. It also names the follow-up tool (dosare_c168_create) and distinguishes from it, so an agent can tell this is a preparation step, not the creation itself.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent what to do next: fill the gaps with anaf_nomenclator_* and the user, then call dosare_c168_create. This provides a clear when-to-use and workflow, and implicitly contrasts with the creation sibling.

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