Synthèse d'une équipe

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes beyond by disclosing that the tool returns a runbook text to be executed by calling other Boond tools. This reveals post-invocation behavior not captured by annotations. The description also explains parameter resolution (manager_id via another tool). No contradictions.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides distinct value (purpose, fallback behavior, output format). No redundant or superfluous text.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the output as a runbook text. It explains the two parameters, their behavior, and the tool's role in a workflow (model must execute referenced tools). Annotations cover safety aspects. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 for both parameters. The tool description adds meaning beyond schema: manager_id can be numeric ID or 'First Last' and will be resolved via boond_resources_search; period defaults to current month if omitted. These details are not in the schema 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 states 'Produit un état d'équipe : qui est sur quoi, qui est absent, qui est disponible' which clearly defines the verb (produces) and resource (team status). It distinguishes itself from sibling workflow tools (e.g., boond_workflow_candidats_pour_opportunite) by specifying the team synthesis output and link to MCP prompt.

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 (to get a team summary) and provides fallback behavior for omitted manager_id. It mentions the tool is equivalent to a prompt and useful for clients that cannot handle MCP prompts, guiding usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternative tools.

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