Projets d'un contact

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by clearly stating the operation loads only the project subsection ('sans le reste de la fiche') and returns a list of linked projects. The read-only trait is already in annotations, but the scoping behavior and the return shape are useful supplementary details.

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: a purpose sentence, a 'Quand' condition, an explicit 'Plutôt que' routing, and a clear 'Returns' line. Every line serves a distinct role and none repeat schema content.

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 one-parameter, read-only endpoint with no output schema, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: what it does, when to use it, which siblings to prefer, and what it returns. The lack of pagination or error details is acceptable for such a simple, self-contained fetch.

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 single parameter is already fully described in the input schema (a numeric ID with description and pattern). The tool description only says 'par son ID' without adding new meaning or context about the parameter, so no additional value is provided 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Récupère les projets d'un(e) contact, par son ID'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating this is only the project list, to be used instead of boond_contacts_get (the full record) or boond_contacts_search (when the ID is unknown).

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 explicitly states the intended use case: 'pour ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche'. The 'Plutôt que' section then names the alternatives and gives the precise condition for choosing each one had two concrete alternatives, making the routing decision obvious.

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