Rechercher des actions

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by specifying that it returns a list of actions and supports pagination (page, pageSize). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context about the output format.

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 brief and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a bullet list of parameters and a return line. Every sentence is necessary, and there is no redundant or extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description only states 'Returns: list of matching actions' without detailing the structure of each action (e.g., fields like id, type, date). Pagination behavior (e.g., total count, default sorting) is missing. While annotations cover safety, the description lacks completeness for a search tool that expects agents to understand return format.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, each with concise French descriptions. The tool description summarizes the parameters (keywords, entity IDs, pagination) but does not add significant new meaning beyond grouping them. Baseline is 3, and no extra context like parameter constraints or interaction rules is provided.

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 for actions (calls, emails, appointments, notes) in BoondManager, distinguishing it from siblings like boond_actions_get (single action) or boond_actions_create (create). It includes the specific resource types and optional filters, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 lists optional filters and pagination, implying when to use the tool (when searching with filters). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_actions_get for a specific action or other search tools. The usage context is partially clear but lacks comparative advice.

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