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. The description adds that it returns a list of deliveries, which is useful given no output schema, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error handling.

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 lines with Args and Returns. Every word is necessary, no fluff or repetition. Well-structured and 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it does, what parameter it takes, and what it returns. It could benefit from clarifying the relation between deliveries and groupments, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'id' parameter. The description restates 'ID du projet' but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 deliveries (CRA) and groupments associated with a project. The verb 'Récupère' is specific, and the resource is explicitly defined (deliveries for a project), distinguishing it from sibling tools like boond_deliveries_get or boond_deliveries_search which have different scopes.

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 deliveries for a specific project ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_deliveries_search. No usage exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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