Détails d'un(e) projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these by stating 'Lecture seule'. It further adds behavioral context beyond annotations: omitting the tab parameter returns only the base record, and an unknown ID yields the raw BoondManager error. These are useful, non-obvious behaviors.

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: the core purpose is stated first, then usage conditions, then parameter behavior, and finally the return type and safety profile. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the schema.

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 read-only getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains when to use it, how to obtain a valid ID, the behavior of the optional tab, the error passthrough, and the general return format. The main missing piece is an exhaustive enumeration of available tab values, but the schema already lists some and the tool's scope may make that 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: it clarifies that tab targets a specific tab and explains the consequence of omitting it. It also specifies that the ID must be sourced from boond_projects_search, which is an actionable constraint beyond the simple numeric pattern in the schema.

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 opens with 'Récupère la fiche complète d'un(e) projet par son ID numérique', which states the verb, resource, and key input. It also distinguishes itself from boond_projects_search by explaining that it is used after a search to obtain attributes not present in the list summary.

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 gives an explicit 'Quand' condition (after boond_projects_search to get full attributes) and an explicit 'Plutôt que' alternative (boond_projects_search when the ID is unknown). It also warns that the ID must come from a search and never from a guess, leaving no ambiguity about selection and prerequisites.

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