Match Tasks To Refs

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important matching behaviors: recognizes multiple formats, falls back to a conservative fuzzy match, only accepts single unambiguous hits. This adds real behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. Each clause earns its place—input examples, recognition formats, fuzzy fallback, and use cases are all compactly included.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, input scope, matching behavior, and usage scenarios. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional information.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'refs' parameter (branch names, commit subjects, PR titles) already partially in the schema, but does not significantly clarify the 'workspace' parameter beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and clearly identifies the resource (code references → Asana tasks). It lists example inputs and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools by being the only one that matches refs to tasks.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use this to connect repository history to Asana work') and gives two concrete use cases. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps, making the guidance clear.

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