Actions liées à un projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the note 'Lecture seule' (redundant with annotations) and mentions the return type ('Liste des actions rattachées au projet'), but provides no further behavioral details such as pagination or error handling. Given the annotations carry the main burden, this is an adequate but minimal addition.

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, with three short sections (purpose, when, returns) that front-load the primary action and then provide routing guidance. There is no fluff, and every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it returns, when to use it, and how it differs from siblings. The annotations already handle safety, so no critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 fully documents the single required parameter 'id' with a clear description ('Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)') and a pattern. The description only repeats 'par son ID' without adding any deeper meaning, so it stays at the baseline 3 for 100% schema coverage.

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), the resource 'actions (appels, emails, RDV, notes) d'un(e) projet', and the scope 'par son ID'. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming boond_projects_get and boond_projects_search as alternatives with different roles, making the purpose 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 includes a 'Quand' clause specifying the exact scenario ('pour ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche') and a 'Plutôt que' clause naming two alternative tools with conditions for their use. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, leaving nothing to inference.

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