Actions liées à un projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a list of specific action types (appels, emails, RDV, notes), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination, sorting, or performance traits. With annotations covering safety, a 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 extremely concise—two sentences (the Args/Returns section is part of the description) with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists arguments, making it easy to parse.

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 is a simple read-only list retrieval with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it returns (types of actions) and the required ID. It could mention sorting or pagination but is largely complete for its simplicity.

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 has 100% coverage for the one parameter, describing it as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'. The description adds that the id is the project ID, which clarifies the parameter's role. This adds marginal value beyond the schema description.

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 tool retrieves actions (calls, emails, appointments, notes) associated with a project. The verb 'Récupère' and the specific resource 'actions liées à un projet' distinguish it from sibling tools like boond_projects_get or other entity-specific action tools.

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 for retrieving project actions but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., boond_actions_search for cross-entity queries). No exclusions or context for when not to use are provided.

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