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 description adds value by specifying the types of actions (calls, emails, appointments, notes) and that it returns a list. However, it does not elaborate on pagination, rate limits, or behavior when no actions exist.

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, using two short sentences that directly convey purpose, parameter, and return. No waste; every word serves a purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it does, required input, and return type. It does not mention filtering or ordering possibilities, but for a straightforward retrieval, it is reasonably complete.

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 single 'id' parameter described as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'. The description adds 'ID du candidat', confirming it is the candidate's ID. This adds slight context but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 clearly states it retrieves actions (calls, emails, RDV, notes) associated with a candidate. The tool name and description explicitly mention 'candidat', distinguishing it from similar tools like boond_actions_get which targets a single action, and boond_companies_actions or boond_contacts_actions which are for other entities.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as boond_actions_search or boond_actions_get. The description implies usage when needing actions for a specific candidate, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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