Rechercher des fils de discussion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth requirements, rate limits). It does not contradict annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate given the rich annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second indicating the return type. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 description covers purpose and return type but lacks details on pagination behavior, default sorting, or how keywords filter results. Given the tool's low complexity (3 optional parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally acceptable but could provide more operational context.

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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter described (e.g., keywords, page, pageSize). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without adding extra 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 internal discussion threads (fils de discussion) in BoondManager, using a specific verb ('Recherche') and resource ('fils de discussion'). It distinguishes from the sibling boond_threads_get (which retrieves a specific thread) by implying a search across multiple threads.

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 but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., boond_threads_get). It does not state when not to use it or mention prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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