Tâches d'un enregistrement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Lecture seule' is redundant but not harmful. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying returned fields (`description`, `state`, `row`, `validatedAt`, `validatedBy`, sub-tasks) and clarifying the 'todolist instanciée' concept and the API limitation on task creation.

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 well-structured with labeled 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', and 'Returns' sections, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The opening enumeration of entity types is long but relevant. Minor redundancy from repeating 'Lecture seule' and the schema's entity enum keeps it from a 5.

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 compensates by listing the key returned fields and clarifying the task-versus-action distinction. It covers the main scenario, alternatives, and API limitations. It omits pagination, ordering, or response envelope details, but those are less critical for a small read-only checklist operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both `id` and `entity` already documented in the input schema. The description restates the entity types in prose, which is helpful for discovery, but it adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the enum and field descriptions provide. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Liste les tâches ... d'un candidat, d'une ressource, ...' and enumerates the full set of applicable record types. It explicitly distinguishes tasks from `boond_actions_search`, so an agent can tell this tool apart from a close sibling.

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 'Quand' section states the precise use case: checking the state of a record's checklist (done/to-do, validated by whom). The 'Plutôt que' section names `boond_actions_search` as the alternative and explains the semantic difference (checklist item vs dated event), also noting that no task creation route exists.

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