Rechercher des fils de discussion

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

The description states it returns a list, consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, but it contains a significant inaccuracy: it says pageSize max is 100 while the schema allows up to 500, and default is 20 while schema says 30. This misrepresents actual tool behavior and undermines transparency.

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 reasonably short with a clear Args/Returns structure, but the parameter lines are redundant with the schema and contain incorrect values. Since every sentence should add value, the inaccuracies mean the text does not earn its place.

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?

Even though the schema and annotations are rich, the description is incomplete: it ignores the 'fields' parameter and provides wrong pagination limits. For a straightforward search tool, the description should correctly summarize all parameters and behavior, which it fails to do.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description lists only 3 of 4 parameters, omitting 'fields', and misstates the defaults/max for page and pageSize. It adds no new meaning beyond the schema and even introduces contradictions.

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 discussion threads in BoondManager by keywords with pagination, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like boond_threads_get by indicating this is for searching, not retrieving a single thread.

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 when to use the tool ('par mots-clés' and 'paginated search'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions. It lacks explicit guidance such as 'use boond_threads_get when the thread ID is known'.

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