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, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds the types of actions included (appels, emails, RDV, notes) but does not disclose other behavior such as pagination, ordering, or potential errors.

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 and well-structured, with a clear main sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is useful and there is no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (single parameter, read-only, no output schema). The description states what it returns (list of actions) and even lists example types, which is adequate for a basic retrieval operation. Minor missing details like sorting or pagination are not critical here.

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 coverage is 100% with a parameter description. The description restates that 'id' is the candidate ID, slightly clarifying the generic schema phrase 'entité BoondManager', but adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) with the resource 'actions associées à un candidat' and lists examples (appels, emails, RDV, notes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on other entities or actions in general.

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?

It clearly implies this tool is for fetching actions tied to a specific candidate, which provides context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, e.g., when to use boond_actions_search instead.

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