Projets d'une ressource

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds that it returns a list of projects, but does not disclose any additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, filtering, or performance). The added value is marginal.

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 two sentences plus an Args section. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return type. It could mention ordering or historical scope, but overall it is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a slight improvement by specifying 'ID de la ressource' versus the schema's 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager', but this is minimal.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves projects for a specific resource, using the verb 'Récupère' and resource 'projets'. This distinguishes it from siblings like boond_resources_get (single resource) and boond_opportunities_projects (projects for an opportunity).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (retrieving projects of a resource). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would warrant a 5.

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