Rechercher des rôles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds basic behavioral details (returns list with ID, name, main details, pagination), but does not disclose any additional traits like rate limits or special response behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 appropriately sized with a clear one-sentence overview, a compact Args list, and a Returns line. It is front-loaded and not excessively verbose, but includes inaccuracies (incorrect pageSize defaults/max) and omits the 'fields' parameter, which slightly detracts from the structure's reliability.

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 has four parameters, an output schema, and rich sibling context, but the description is incomplete: it omits the 'fields' parameter, does not mention sibling tools or when to use this search, and contains contradictory pagination details. These gaps could lead an agent to misuse the tool or choose the wrong sibling 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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description's Args section introduces inaccuracies: it states pageSize default is 20 and max is 100, while the schema indicates default 30 and max 500. It also completely omits the 'fields' projection parameter, which is documented in the schema. Thus, the description actually reduces clarity rather than adding value.

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 searches for roles ('Recherche des rôles dans BoondManager par mots-clés avec pagination'), specifying the resource (rôles), action (recherche), and scope (mots-clés, pagination). It is distinct from siblings like boond_roles_get, which is likely for fetching a single role, and other entity-specific search 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as boond_roles_get for retrieving a specific role or other search tools for different entities. It simply states what the tool does without exclusions or contextual cues.

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