Afficher la fiche détail d'un BCF

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses that the tool displays an interactive card with inline actions and special internal parameter (snapshotViewpointId). It does not claim destructive behavior or contradict any annotations, though it could mention that inline actions are UI triggers, not executed.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and alternatives. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value, earning a 4.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains the return is an interactive MCP App card and lists its contents (description, status, priority, comments, viewpoints, actions). It provides sufficient context for the agent to understand what the user will see.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the special purpose of snapshotViewpointId and the need to resolve topicId from a title, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 shows an interactive MCP App card with full detail of a BCF topic, listing specific fields (description, status, priority, comments, viewpoints) and distinguishing from the sibling tool tc_bcf action topic_get which returns plain data without UI.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user asks to SEE the detail'), provides a prerequisite (resolve topic GUID via tc_bcf action topics_list if the user gave a title), and names an alternative (tc_bcf action topic_get for plain data).

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