Demandes d'absences d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint accurately. The description adds that it returns a list of absences, which is helpful but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond 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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, then args and returns. No redundant information, front-loaded with the main action.

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 (one param, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it does and returns. It could mention that the list is for the resource's absence reports, but no pagination or filtering details are necessary for a basic retrieval tool.

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 has 100% coverage with a generic description ('Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'). The description clarifies that the ID is for a resource ('ID de la ressource'), adding specific meaning 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 absence requests for a resource, listing types (congés, RTT, maladie). It distinguishes from siblings like boond_absences_get by focusing on a specific resource's reports, but no explicit contrast is given.

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 provides the required argument and return format, implying it is used when you need absences for a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like boond_absences_search or boond_absences_get.

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