lookupResolve a roost by slug or tenantId. Returns a compact view { tenantId, slug, url, apex, tier, state, expiresAt, customDomain, galleryListed }. Use this to recover state across turns when the user mentions their site without giving you the tenantId. To see every hatch in a workspace, use list instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Hostname label (without the apex domain) | |
| tenantId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the compact return shape and the single-record scoping behavior, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 three sentences long, front-loads the core action and return shape, and every sentence earns its place. It includes return fields, usage context, and a sibling alternative without any filler.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it gives identifiers, expected return fields, a concrete use case, and routing to the list sibling. Annotations cover side-effect concerns, and nothing critical is missing.
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?
The schema documents 'slug' but not 'tenantId', giving 50% coverage. The description's phrase 'by slug or tenantId' conveys interchangeability but does not explain what tenantId represents or when to prefer one over the other. This is adequate but leaves a gap for the undocumented parameter.
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 opens with the specific verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'a roost by slug or tenantId', then lists the exact compact return view. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list' tool by saying 'To see every hatch in a workspace, use list instead.'
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 gives an explicit use case: 'recover state across turns when the user mentions their site without giving you the tenantId.' It also provides an explicit alternative: use 'list' to see every hatch in a workspace, so an agent knows when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Core actions like hatch, convert, upload, and lookup are generally distinct, but the polling family (poll_approval, poll_decision, poll_pairing) is easy to confuse, and await_decision misleadingly sounds like a wait operation rather than the creation of a review. Descriptions clarify boundaries, but the names alone leave room for misselection.
Most tools use an imperative verb style, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (hatch, convert, deploy, list, lookup, share, upload), some are verb_noun (poll_decision, refresh_session, get_pairing_code), and auth is a bare noun. The names are readable but do not follow one predictable convention.
16 tools sits at the heavy end of the comfortable range, inflated by three polling tools plus pairing/session management that are only tangentially related to the core task of creating and updating roosts. Each tool has a purpose, but the surface feels larger than the core domain requires.
The set covers create, read/list, update via convert/upload/deploy, sharing, and auth, but there is no delete/destroy or teardown tool, and custom domain/state management is only passively visible through lookup. Agents can complete common workflows but will hit dead ends on teardown or lifecycle management.