Actions liées à un candidat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a list of actions, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or response structure. This is adequate given the annotations cover safety.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the action retrieval purpose. Every sentence is essential and there is no extraneous text.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and returns. It could mention the output format or potential filtering, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter. The description merely restates 'ID du candidat', adding no additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verb 'Récupère' and resource 'actions associées à un candidat', clearly distinguishing it from sibling candidate tools (e.g., get, search) and other entity actions tools (e.g., boond_companies_actions). It specifies the types of actions (appels, emails, RDV, notes).

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 context is clear from the title and description that this tool is for retrieving actions tied to a candidate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over boond_actions_search or other candidate-specific tools, though the intent is easily inferred.

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