Demandes d'absences d'une ressource

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds that it returns a list of absence requests, which is consistent. No additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination) are provided, but annotations cover the core traits.

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 two clear sections: a main sentence and an Args/Returns list. However, the Returns line is somewhat redundant with the main sentence, but overall it's efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameter. The absence of an output schema means no return format is detailed, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'id' is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('ID de la ressource'), which is already implied by the tool context.

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 absence requests for a resource, specifying types like vacations and illness. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'boond_absences_get' or 'boond_absences_search', which might cause ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'boond_absences_get' (specific absence) or 'boond_absences_search' (searching absences). The agent must infer usage context.

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