Détails d'un(e) drapeau

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the tool is read-only ('Lecture seule'), which aligns with readOnlyHint=true, and it discloses error behavior for unknown IDs ('remonte l'erreur BoondManager telle quelle'). It also mentions the return format (JSON of the entity with attributes and relations). No contradictions with annotations; the description enriches the safety profile with error handling and provenance expectations.

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 succinct and well-structured: it opens with the core function, then explains when to use it, contrasts with the alternative, includes a warning, and ends with the return format. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy. The most critical info (what it does) is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only get tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, error behavior, return format, and source of the ID. The annotations already declare safety (idempotent, non-destructive), so the description need not repeat those. Nothing a caller needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already provides a complete description of the id parameter ('Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)') with a pattern, so coverage is high. The description adds semantic value by emphasizing that the ID must come from boond_flags_search and never from guessing, clarifying the source and validity of the parameter. This goes slightly beyond the schema's syntax explanation, warranting a 4.

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'), the resource ('fiche complète d'un(e) drapeau'), and the key parameter (ID numérique). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool boond_flags_search by specifying it retrieves the full record after a search, where list summaries omit attributes. This provides strong differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: after a boond_flags_search, to obtain attributes not present in the list summary. It also gives a clear exclusion: use boond_flags_search if the ID is unknown, since this tool only accepts an ID, not a name. Additionally, it warns that the ID must come from search, never from guessing, which is actionable guidance.

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