Actions liées à une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the result is a list of actions, but does not disclose pagination, filtering, or error behavior, which is acceptable given the read-only nature.

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 the main sentence front-loaded and a Returns line. However, the Args section duplicates schema information, which is slightly redundant but does not make the description bloated.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core functionality and return type. Missing details include whether the actions are paginated or sorted, and what constitutes an 'action' beyond the listed examples, but overall it is minimally sufficient.

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 fully documents the 'id' parameter with a pattern and description. The description's Args section merely restates the schema without adding semantic detail, so it provides no extra value 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 uses the specific verb 'Récupère' and clearly identifies the resource scope ('associées à une ressource'), listing action types (appels, emails, RDV, notes). This distinguishes it from generic action tools or other entity-specific action tools.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the resource-specific retrieval pattern, but the description does not mention when to prefer this over boond_actions_search or other entity action tools.

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