Actions liées à un projet

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that actions include calls, emails, appointments, and notes, providing useful scoping, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral details beyond what annotations state.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The Args/Returns format is clear, though it slightly duplicates the schema, but no extraneous information is included.

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 read-only tool with a single parameter and high schema coverage, the description is adequate. It explains the return value at a high level (list of actions) and the types of actions, which is sufficient given the annotations. However, it lacks detail about the structure of each action, but the tool's simplicity mitigates this.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description and pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by labeling the parameter as 'ID du projet', but this is largely redundant given the tool's name.

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 actions (calls, emails, appointments, notes) associated with a project, using the specific verb 'Récupère'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_opportunities_actions or boond_contacts_actions by explicitly scoping to 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 actions for a specific project, but it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like boond_actions_search or boond_actions_get, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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