Rechercher des actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns a list of matching actions, which is useful but does not disclose pagination behavior, field projection effects, or what constitutes the standard summary. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns line. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbiage.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic list of arguments and a vague return description ('Liste des actions correspondantes'). It omits the 'fields' projection parameter from its Args list and does not explain default behavior (e.g., if no filters, all actions are returned). This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description repeats the purpose of keywords and entity IDs, but omits the 'fields' parameter entirely and adds no extra syntax or format details. This aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 the tool searches actions (calls, emails, appointments, notes) in BoondManager with optional filters. This differentiates it from sibling tools like boond_actions_get (retrieve a single action) and boond_actions_create/update/delete.

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 implies usage via optional filters by candidate, resource, contact, or company, indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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