Détails d'un(e) fil de discussion

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 covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: unknown IDs return the BoondManager error as-is, the ID must come from a prior search rather than guesswork, and the tool is read-only. It could give slightly more detail on error shape, but it goes well beyond just repeating 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 compact, well-structured with 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', and 'Returns' sections, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage timing, alternative, error caveat, and return format.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with rich annotations, the description covers everything needed: what it returns (JSON entity with attributes and relations), when to call it, how to obtain the ID, and the error behavior. No output schema exists, but the return format is stated clearly enough.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the id parameter already described as a numeric unique identifier. The description reinforces that it is numeric and must be sourced from boond_threads_search, which is helpful usage context, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Récupère la fiche complète d'un(e) fil de discussion') on a clear resource by numeric ID. It also distinguishes this tool from boond_threads_search by noting it retrieves attributes not present in the list summary, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from its sibling.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: use after boond_threads_search to fetch attributes missing from the list. It also explicitly says not to use it when the ID is unknown and names the alternative, boond_threads_search, including the reason that this tool does not accept a name.

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