Projets d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a list of projects, but does not disclose other behavioral details like authentication needs or error conditions. This is acceptable for a simple retrieval.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args' section is clearly formatted. It could be slightly more concise, but it's efficient with no wasted 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-only retrieval tool with one parameter, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (list of projects). No output schema is provided, but the return type is implied. The description is sufficient for a basic use case.

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 (id), and the description's 'Args' section repeats the schema description without adding extra meaning. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Récupère') and the resource ('projets d'une ressource'), and the name distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'boond_projects_get' or 'boond_projects_search'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as boond_projects_search or boond_resources_get. No exclusions or context are mentioned.

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