Fiche complète d'un collaborateur

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: the tool returns a text runbook that the model must execute by calling other Boond tools, and it automatically resolves resource IDs via search. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 consists of two clear, front-loaded sentences with no waste. Every sentence adds value: purpose and usage context.

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 the tool's complexity (aggregates multiple data sources, returns a runbook), the description adequately covers what it does and its output. The absence of an output schema is compensated by describing the return as a runbook text. Minor gap: no details on runbook format or referenced tools, but sufficient for the tool type.

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 a clear description of the single parameter (resource_id) accepting ID or name. The tool description does not add additional parameter details, so baseline 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 it provides a '360° view' of a resource, listing components (info, technical profile, positionings, absences, recent CRA). It also explains it is the tool equivalent of an MCP prompt, returning a runbook to execute. The purpose is specific and well-differentiated from sibling 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 explains when to use it: as an alternative to the MCP prompt for clients that cannot handle prompts correctly. It implies use for comprehensive resource overviews, though it does not explicitly exclude other tools like boond_resources_get. Clear context is provided.

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