Projets d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the subset of projects included (current and past missions) and stating that the return value is a list. It does not describe pagination or ordering, but the annotations lower the burden for this simple read-only call.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Quand, Plutôt que, Returns) and front-loads the primary purpose. It is compact and scannable, with only minor redundancy in 'Lecture seule', which repeats the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 single-parameter read-only subresource tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, when to use it, and which alternatives to prefer. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently identifies the return type as a list of projects.

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%: the 'id' parameter is documented with a description and regex pattern. The description simply refers to 'son ID' and adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Récupère les projets ... d'un(e) ressource, par son ID.' It further clarifies the scope (missions en cours et passées) and explicitly distinguishes itself from boond_resources_get and boond_resources_search, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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 'Quand' section states the intended use case: loading only this section without the rest of the resource record. The 'Plutôt que' section names concrete alternatives and when they apply, providing clear routing guidance for the agent.

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