Feuilles de temps d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as filtering, pagination, or authorization requirements, only repeating the retrieval purpose and return type.

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 action. It follows a clear Args/Returns structure, though it repeats 'feuilles de temps' multiple times.

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 tool, the description is adequate but lacks clarity on how it differs from the sibling 'boond_resources_timesheets' and does not detail the return structure beyond 'list of timesheets'.

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%, with the 'id' parameter fully described in the schema as a numeric BoondManager entity identifier. The description's 'ID de la ressource' adds no new meaning 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 it retrieves the timesheets of a resource (Récupère les feuilles de temps d'une ressource), specifying the verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'boond_resources_timesheets', which could cause confusion.

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_resources_timesheets' or 'boond_timesheets_search'. It only describes the action without context or exclusions.

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