Rechercher des logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns a list of logs but no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, data freshness). For a read-only operation, this is adequate but not extra informative.

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?

Very concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose. It is efficient, though lacks detail on return values or usage. Still earns a 4 for being appropriately sized.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally complete. However, it could provide more context about the scope of logs searched and the search behavior (e.g., whether keywords search across all fields). With many sibling tools, additional clarity would be beneficial.

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% for 3 parameters (keywords, page, pageSize). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 searches audit logs (historique des actions utilisateurs) in BoondManager. It distinguishes from the sibling boond_logs_get by implying search vs single retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like boond_logs_get. The description only implies usage for searching logs without context on when to choose search over other log-related tools.

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