Extracts structured entities—vehicles, parties, damages, and circumstances—from raw car insurance claim reports and returns a structured ClaimData object.
Extrait les entités structurées d'un constat de sinistre automobile : véhicules, parties, dommages et circonstances. Retourne un objet ClaimData structuré.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claimId | Yes | Identifiant unique du sinistre | |
| rawText | Yes | Texte brut du constat amiable |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a structured return object but does not describe side effects, error behavior, reliability, permissions, or whether it is read-only; significant behavioral context is missing.
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 sentences with no wasted words; the purpose and return type are front-loaded and immediately clear. The description is appropriately sized for the amount of information it chooses to convey.
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 gives the extraction target and return type, but with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about the structure of ClaimData and any input assumptions or limitations. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for correct invocation in ambiguous cases.
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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb ('Extrait') and resource ('constat de sinistre automobile') and enumerates the extracted entity types, making the operation concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like classify_claim_severity, but the extraction purpose is clear enough to infer the difference.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description implies usage from the input nature but leaves all routing decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.