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 that it returns a list with days/hours and status, and that month/year default to current values. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the list is limited to a specific period beyond the filter. This is adequate but not rich.

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 and front-loaded: it states the core function first, then usage guidance, then parameters, then return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'Quand' / 'Plutôt que' section is concise and highly informative.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return value (list with days/hours and status) and the default behavior for month/year. The only minor gap is lack of detail on pagination or response structure, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this is not a significant omission.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (resourceId, month, year) with their types and defaults. The description repeats this information without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 the tool retrieves timesheets (feuilles de temps / CRA) for a specific resource by ID, with an optional month/year filter. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boond_timesheets_get (detail of a specific CRA) and boond_timesheets_search (multiple resources), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: use this tool to list a resource's CRA for a given month without knowing their IDs, and prefer boond_timesheets_get for a specific CRA detail or boond_timesheets_search for multiple resources. This clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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