Livraisons d'un projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a list of deliveries but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or the exact handling of 'groupements' beyond the initial mention.

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 well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary words, though the mention of 'groupements' in the purpose but not in the Returns is a minor structural gap.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the basic return expectation ('Liste des livraisons'). However, the initial mention of 'groupements' is not reflected in the Returns, and there is no detail on whether the response is paginated or includes nested data. Overall, adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for the single 'id' parameter. The description clarifies that 'id' is the project ID, adding slight context beyond the schema's generic 'entity' wording, but this is largely inferable from the tool name. No significant additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 deliveries (CRA) and associated groupings for a project, using the specific verb 'Récupère'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by scoping to project deliveries, though it does not explicitly name alternatives as in the calibration example.

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. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like boond_deliveries_get or boond_projects_orders.

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