Feuilles de temps d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a list of CRA for the resource, is read-only, and clarifies the granularity boundary (day-by-day detail belongs to boond_timesheets_get). It doesn't describe pagination or response shape, but with annotations covering safety, this is solid.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action is stated first, followed by usage guidance and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and the read-only note is a useful final flag. No filler or repetition.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned, when to use it, and which sibling to use instead. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the response structure or pagination, but no output schema exists and the description still gives enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'id' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the ID identifies the resource whose timesheets are fetched, but adds no new format or syntax details beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('Récupère'), a precise resource ('les feuilles de temps (CRA) d'un(e) ressource'), and the lookup key ('par son ID'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boond_resources_get and boond_resources_search, and even from boond_timesheets_get for day-by-day detail.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Quand : pour ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche') and names alternatives with the condition that selects them ('Plutôt que : boond_resources_get pour la fiche de base, ou boond_resources_search si l'ID est inconnu'). It also routes to boond_timesheets_get for month-level day-by-day detail.

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