Synthèse d'une équipe

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: it 'Retourne un runbook texte que le modèle doit ensuite exécuter en appelant les outils Boond référencés', indicating this is not a simple data return but an orchestration step. It also explains the default manager_id behavior, adding substantial transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the primary purpose, then covers fallback behavior, usage context, and return type in two sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value ('runbook texte') and instructs the model on next steps. It also provides background on the tool's origin (MCP prompt equivalence) and parameter defaults, making it complete for a workflow tool of this complexity.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaningful semantic detail about manager_id: if omitted, it uses the current user as manager, which clarifies default behavior beyond the schema's simple description.

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 'Produit un état d'équipe' and enumerates specific outputs ('qui est sur quoi, qui est absent, qui est disponible'), giving a precise verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from sibling workflow tools by mentioning its equivalence to the MCP prompt `synthese_equipe`, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 context on when to use the tool, specifically for team synthesis and as a fallback for clients that mishandle MCP prompts (e.g., claude.ai). It mentions an alternative (the MCP prompt itself) but does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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