Détails d'un(e) projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that it returns 'Données JSON complètes de l'entité', which is consistent but does not provide significant additional behavioral context beyond the 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 concise with a clear front-loaded purpose, structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args list duplicates schema info slightly. Overall, it is efficient 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it does, how to call it, and what to expect (JSON). It does not mention pagination or errors, but for a single-entity retrieval, this is adequate. The annotations further assure safety.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the parameter names and examples, adding negligible new meaning. It does list the valid tab values, but the schema also includes this information in its description. Thus, the description adds minimal value 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 'Récupère les informations détaillées d'un(e) projet par son ID', specifying the verb (retrieve), resource (project), and method (by ID). It also mentions an optional tab parameter, distinguishing from sibling tools like boond_projects_search or boond_projects_information.

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 the tool should be used when an agent has a project ID and needs detailed information, optionally from a specific tab. While no explicit when-not or alternatives are given, the context of sibling tools (e.g., search, create) provides implicit guidance. The instruction is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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