Récap hebdomadaire (moi + mon équipe)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds that the output is a runbook text containing references to Boond tools, which the model should execute. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each providing essential information: what it does, equivalent prompt, and output expectation. No redundant text, well-structured.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description explains the output is a runbook text. It covers the categories included and the intended use of the output. Could be slightly more detailed about the runbook format, but sufficient given the tool's purpose.

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 'semaine' parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Clearly states it compiles a weekly recap for the user and their team, including opportunities, projects, absences, and CRA. Distinguishes itself from sibling workflow tools by focusing on a consolidated view rather than specific tasks.

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?

Explains it is useful for clients that don't handle MCP prompts properly (e.g., claude.ai) and that the output is a runbook to be executed. Provides clear context for when to use this tool, though does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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