Actions liées à une ressource

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds that it retrieves a list of actions and specifies types (calls, emails, etc.), which is useful context but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication or rate limits.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence immediately states the purpose. The arg and return sections are concise and every sentence is meaningful. No wasted words.

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?

Description states purpose, parameters, and return type (list). For a one-parameter read tool without output schema, this is adequate but could be more descriptive about the structure of returned actions. However, it covers the essential information.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with description for 'id'. Description repeats parameter info but adds no additional semantics beyond what schema provides. No new format or constraints are specified.

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 actions (calls, emails, appointments, notes) associated with a resource. The verb 'Récupère' and specific resource scope differentiate it from sibling tools like boond_candidates_actions or boond_companies_actions.

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?

Description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_candidates_actions. Usage is implied by resource-specific naming, but no exclusions or comparisons are offered.

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