Anticipation des fins de mission

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool returns a text runbook that the model must subsequently execute by calling other Boond tools. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, which already indicate a safe read-only operation, and adds valuable context about the expected follow-up actions.

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 and well-structured: three sentences that front-load the main purpose, then add the highlight feature, the MCP equivalence, and the runbook output. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value (a text runbook) and the required follow-up. It also mentions the optional filtering parameters via the schema. A bit more detail on the runbook format could enhance completeness, but the current description is sufficient for the model to understand the tool's purpose and output.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (`manager_id` and `horizon_jours`), including default values and resolution logic. The description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the 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's function: listing resources whose assignments end soon and highlighting those without a confirmed next step, to anticipate repositioning. It also distinguishes itself from sibling workflow tools by mentioning the MCP prompt equivalence and the runbook output.

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 provides clear usage context: it is the tool equivalent of the MCP prompt `fin_de_mission` and is useful for clients that do not handle MCP prompts, such as claude.ai. It also implies when to use it (for repositioning planning), but does not explicitly exclude other tools or state when not to use it.

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