Feuilles de temps d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description minimally adds that it returns a list of timesheets. No mention of pagination, potential errors, or the data structure beyond 'list'.

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 (3 lines) and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses a clear Args/Returns structure without extraneous information.

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 ID-based retrieval with good annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It could be more complete by clarifying the returned fields or any limitations, but it is sufficient for basic use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description's 'ID de la ressource' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'. It is less specific, so 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 'Récupère les feuilles de temps d'une ressource' (retrieves timesheets of a resource), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like boond_resources_timesheets or boond_timesheets_get, which have similar names and purposes.

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 (e.g., boond_timesheets_search for filtering). The description lacks context about optimal use cases or prerequisites.

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