Projets liés à une opportunité

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond restating the return type ('Liste des projets liés à l'opportunité'). It does not disclose any additional traits such as filtering, pagination, or permission requirements. The value add over annotations is negligible.

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 very concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to parse. It avoids unnecessary elaboration while covering the essential information.

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 tool with one parameter and strong read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the input and output but does not describe the output structure (e.g., fields of returned projects). Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail could help, but the core functionality is clear enough for basic usage.

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 input schema describes 'id' generically as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'. The tool description specifically clarifies that the id is the 'ID de l'opportunité' (opportunity ID), which is critical for correct usage. Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential semantic meaning by identifying the entity type.

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 verb+resource: 'Récupère les projets issus de cette opportunité' (Retrieves the projects from this opportunity). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_opportunities_actions or boond_opportunities_positionings by specifying the relationship to projects. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning any alternatives or exclusions. There is no 'use this instead of X' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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