Projets d'un contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a list of projects, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or potential errors.

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 extremely concise—just three lines—with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and lists the argument and return value efficiently.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it states the purpose, argument, and return. It could mention pagination or response structure, but given the simplicity and good annotations, it is sufficient.

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 of the id parameter ('Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'), while the description specifies it is the contact's ID ('ID du contact'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 retrieves projects associated with a contact ('Récupère les projets associés à un contact'). This verb+resource pattern is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_companies_projects or boond_opportunities_projects.

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 usage when you need a contact's projects. It lists the required parameter (id) explicitly. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives among siblings, which are numerous.

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