Audit fraîcheur des CV / dossiers techniques

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate safety. The description adds value by explaining the tool analyzes resources and returns a runbook for execution, with criteria based on parameters.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes essential details about output and alternative usage without verbosity.

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 complex workflow tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value (runbook text) and its intended use. It covers core functionality and parameters, though lacks details on criteria for 'incomplet'.

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 descriptions. The description adds context: manager_id accepts ID or name with auto-resolution via another tool, and default scope is 'mon équipe'. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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The description clearly states that the tool identifies resources with outdated, incomplete, or missing CVs/technical files, prioritizes soon-available resources, and returns a runbook for execution. This distinguishes it from sibling workflow tools.

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 explicitly says it's equivalent to a MCP prompt, useful for clients that don't handle prompts well. This provides context on when to use this tool versus the prompt alternative, though it doesn't compare to all sibling tools.

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