Projets liés à une opportunité

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns a list of projects, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential empty results, error cases, or data freshness. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short and includes a structured Args/Returns section for clarity. It is efficient with no wasted words, but could be slightly better formatted for readability.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks details about return format, pagination, or error handling, which would be expected for completeness even with annotations present.

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 only parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema with description 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager' and 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline without improvement.

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 the verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and the resource 'projets issus de cette opportunité', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boond_projects_get by specifying the input as an opportunity ID.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings exist for project retrieval, the description does not explain the context or exclusion criteria. Usage is only implied by the parameter type.

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