Compétences techniques d'un candidat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., authorization requirements, rate limits), so it does not surpass what annotations provide.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by structured parameter and return details. It avoids unnecessary words, though the 'Returns' line could be more specific about the output structure.

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 retrieves a single candidate's technical data by ID, the description covers the main purpose and data types. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by listing returned fields. Minor gaps include no mention of response format or error cases, but it is sufficient for this simple operation.

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%, so the schema fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description repeats the parameter info ('ID du candidat') without adding extra meaning such as format constraints or usage notes, warranting the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the technical profile of a candidate, listing specific data types (skills, experiences, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling candidates tools like boond_candidates_get (general info) and boond_candidates_information (broader info) by focusing on technical data.

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 explains what data is returned but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_candidates_get or boond_candidates_administrative. Usage context is implied but not directly addressed.

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