Référentiels d'un formulaire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint flags. The description adds context by specifying the GET endpoint, noting the response is returned as-is, and explaining the form's contents (questions, validator, recipient). This goes beyond simply restating annotations, adding useful behavioral details without contradiction.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by contextual usage notes, read-only confirmation, and return type. No redundant sentences; every line contributes value.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does, when to use it, how it differs from alternatives, and what the response contains. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it 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 each parameter having a clear description (resourceId, templateId). The description mentions 'template' and 'entity' but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 states a specific action (returns an empty pre-filled form) with a clear resource (for a template and entity), and distinguishes it from boond_forms_get and boond_forms_create. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Quand : AVANT boond_forms_create') and what to use instead ('Plutôt que : boond_forms_get'), providing clear guidance on selection among related tools.

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