Projets d'un contact

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

The description's 'Récupère' and 'Returns: Liste des projets' are consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the input-output relationship, but no mention of pagination, filtering, or permissions. Annotations already cover safety, so this is acceptable but not enriched.

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 well-structured with an Args and Returns section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, and every line adds necessary information 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it states the input and the returned entity type. It could further specify output structure or edge cases (e.g., empty list), but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, it covers the essentials.

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 schema provides a generic description for 'id' as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'. The description adds specific meaning by labeling it 'ID du contact', clarifying that the id refers to the contact entity. This adds value beyond the schema, though the schema already covers 100% of parameters.

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 'Récupère les projets associés à un contact' (retrieves the projects associated with a contact), which combines a specific verb and resource with the scope of a contact. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_contacts_opportunities, boond_contacts_orders, and boond_projects_get.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need a contact's projects) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations. It does not mention when not to use it or name any sibling tools for different use cases.

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