Détails d'un(e) projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the optional tab and return type, but does not disclose error handling, authorization, or response structure nuances. This is adequate but not rich beyond annotations.

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 two sentences plus a minimal Args/Returns section, all front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence is purposeful, and there is no wasted or redundant wording.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description covers the core action, optional tab, and return type. It does not elaborate on error behavior or response structure, but given the tool's simplicity and schema coverage, this is acceptable.

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%, and the Args section in the description largely duplicates the schema. It only adds a project-specific label for id, which is a minor clarification. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema already 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 the tool retrieves detailed project information by ID, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search (no ID needed) and other entity-specific get tools. The optional tab mention further clarifies scope.

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 have a project ID and want detailed data, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives like boond_projects_search or boond_projects_information. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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