Cartographie des compétences d'un périmètre

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a runbook text that must be executed by calling other Boond tools, which is important behavioral context. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) and adds value beyond them by explaining the output usage.

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 concise, consisting of a few sentences that front-load the main purpose and then add important context about equivalence to a MCP prompt and the nature of the output. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (runbook text) and how the model should use it. All three optional parameters are covered in the schema descriptions, and the purpose and usage context are fully specified for a mapping 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions for manager_id, agency_id, and top_n. The main description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool produces a skills mapping for a perimeter (team, agency), listing top skills, rare skills, and missing skills vs opportunities. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it is equivalent to a MCP prompt for clients that don't handle prompts correctly.

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 explains the context of use (for clients that cannot correctly handle MCP prompts, e.g., claude.ai) and notes that the output is a runbook text that the model must execute by calling referenced Boond tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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