Actions liées à un contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which clearly indicate safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that it returns a list of actions and lists action types, but does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, error handling, or sorting options.

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: two sentences in French, plus structured Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose and adds no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

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 a simple read tool with one parameter, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return type. It could mention error conditions or result format, but it is still fairly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'id' with a description ('Identifiant unique') and pattern. The description adds only 'ID du contact', which does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and the resource 'actions...associées à un contact'. It specifies the types of actions (calls, emails, appointments, notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_candidates_actions or boond_companies_actions, which serve different 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the entity-based naming convention provides implicit guidance, the presence of many sibling action tools (e.g., for candidates, companies, opportunities) would benefit from explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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