Informations générales d'un projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns 'general data' and lists fields, but does not contradict annotations. It adds value by clarifying the scope of the return data (not full project details).

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?

Description is three lines, includes structured Args/Returns, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides value.

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 (single required param, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It lists sample return fields (client, dates, état), giving the agent a clear expectation. Could mention that it returns only general info vs full project object, but not critical.

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% with one parameter 'id'. The description restates 'ID du projet', which adds little beyond the schema's 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 general project information with examples (client, dates, état, description, responsable). The verb 'Récupère' is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool boond_projects_get, which likely also retrieves a project but possibly with more detail.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives like boond_projects_get or boond_projects_search. The agent would have to infer from name that this is for 'general info' but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.

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