Actions liées à un candidat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that it retrieves actions and is read-only ('Lecture seule'), which slightly reinforces the annotation. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, response format, or potential for large data sets, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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, with key information front-loaded in the first sentence. It uses short paragraphs for usage guidance and return type, making it scannable. It could be slightly more compact, but it is not verbose or redundant.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read-only tool. The description covers purpose, usage context, and return type. Given the presence of annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and full schema coverage, nothing critical is missing. The only minor gap is not describing the response structure in detail, but the absence of an output schema suggests standard behavior.

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%, and the parameter 'id' is well-documented ('Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'). The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but also does not need to, since the schema covers it fully. Per baseline, score is 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 states a specific verb ('Récupère') and resource ('actions d'un candidat') and lists the action types (appels, emails, RDV, notes), which distinguishes it from generic get tools. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from, but the context signals (sibling list) include similar actions tools for other entities, and the description's specificity is sufficient.

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 clearly states when to use this tool ('pour ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche') and provides explicit alternatives ('Plutôt que : `boond_candidates_get` pour la fiche de base, ou `boond_candidates_search` si l'ID est inconnu'). This is exemplary usage guidance with both when and when-not conditions.

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