Rechercher des fils de discussion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds return structure (list with ID, name, details). No further behavioral traits disclosed, but no contradiction. Adequate given 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?

Description is relatively short but includes an args list that mostly duplicates schema information, with errors. The return statement adds value. Could be more concise by avoiding repetition and correcting defaults.

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?

While output schema exists and returns are briefly described, the description fails to clarify pagination behavior and has inconsistent defaults. For a search tool with pagination, more detail on how page and pageSize interact is needed.

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%, so baseline is 3. However, description gives conflicting default (20 vs 30) and max (100 vs 500) for pageSize compared to schema, causing confusion. The description adds some meaning (keywords examples) but the error reduces usefulness.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches discussion threads by keywords with pagination. The verb 'Recherche' and resource 'fils de discussion' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tool boond_threads_get which is for individual threads. No ambiguity.

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 implies usage for searching threads by keywords, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like boond_threads_get or other search tools. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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