never4ga_workspace_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is mechanical and will refuse to guess rather than arbitrarily pick a workspace, which is an important non-obvious trait. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no workspace matches, or what the 'why' output actually contains.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose followed by a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value, though 'Mechanical:' is slightly jargon-like; the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. It is incomplete on important details: it does not explain what happens if 'cwd' is omitted, what the return value or 'why' looks like, or how ambiguity is surfaced. These gaps matter for correct invocation but are less severe than for a complex mutation tool.

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%, and the single parameter 'cwd' already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, default behavior when omitted, or how it is used in resolution. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 core function: determining which Never4gA workspace a directory belongs to, plus the reason. It identifies the resource and the relation, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'resolve'. It is distinct from all listed siblings, none of which handle workspace resolution.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not conditions. The phrase 'refuses to guess rather than picking one' hints at a preference for authoritative resolution, but it does not tell the agent when to call this instead of other workspace-related tools.

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