Utilisateur courant BoondManager

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns JSON data about the current user, mentions no parameters, and clarifies that this is not the tool for querying other users.

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 with 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', and 'Returns' sections, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is slightly longer than necessary and the 'identique et moins coûteuse' phrase adds ambiguity without much benefit.

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?

For a zero-parameter introspection tool, the description covers the main decision point: when to call it and when to use boond_resources_search instead. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of JSON user data with profile, permissions, and agency is useful and sufficient for a basic agent decision.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating that the tool takes no parameters, which is helpful for an agent choosing between this and a parameterized sibling like boond_resources_search.

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 retrieves information about the currently connected BoondManager API user, including profile, permissions, and agency. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from boond_resources_search by the account-holder scope.

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 explicitly says to use this tool at the start of a session to identify the account and its scope, and it points to boond_resources_search when querying someone other than the account holder. However, the comparison with the boond://application/current-user resource is worded ambiguously ('identique et moins coûteuse') and could confuse an agent about whether to prefer the tool or the resource.

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