Positionnements d'une ressource

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description reinforces this with 'Lecture seule' and adds useful context: it returns a list, it scopes to placements on opportunities or projects, and it loads only this section. Pagination and error behavior are not covered, but the annotations lower the burden for this simple read tool.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and organized with 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', and 'Returns' labels. There is slight redundancy between 'Récupère les positionnements' and 'Returns: Liste des positionnements', but no meaningful filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, invocation trigger, alternatives, and return kind. It could specify the fields of a positioning item or pagination behavior, but it provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter, including type, pattern, and description. The tool description only reinforces that lookup is by resource ID and suggests boond_resources_search if the ID is unknown, which is helpful but does not add necessary semantics 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 states a specific action and object: it retrieves the positionings of a resource by ID, and parenthetically clarifies what positionings are (placements on opportunities/projects). It also positions itself against boond_resources_get and boond_resources_search, helping an agent distinguish it from relevant siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('only this section, without the rest of the record') and which alternatives to prefer: boond_resources_get for the base record, or boond_resources_search when the ID is unknown. This is clear and actionable guidance.

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