Informations générales d'un projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns general project data with specific fields, but provides no additional behavioral context such as error behavior, response format, or limitations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Minor imperfections include the trailing '...' in the field list and the Args section merely restating the schema parameter.

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?

The tool is simple (1 required param, read-only), and the description adequately explains what it returns. However, the ambiguity with boond_projects_get and the lack of any distinction between the two tools makes the description incomplete for correct tool selection in the broader context.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description. The description adds that the 'id' is the project ID, which is slightly more context than the schema's 'entité BoondManager', but it does not compensate for any missing information since the schema is already comprehensive.

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), using the verb 'Récupère'. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool boond_projects_get, which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_projects_get or boond_projects_search. The description gives no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate.

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