qwen_resolve_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the core behavior—mapping a project name to a canonical root directory—and the word 'actual' hints at symlink or path canonicalization. But it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether the project must already exist, or what happens on failure.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and 'actual' adds useful nuance about canonicalization. The verb and object are front-loaded, making the definition 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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient: the core purpose is clear and return values are presumably covered by the output schema. However, it lacks usage guidance, routing to alternatives, input format details, and any error or side-effect context, leaving gaps an agent must navigate.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'project' with no description, giving 0% schema coverage. The description adds that the parameter is a 'project name', which clarifies it is not a path or ID, but it does not specify the expected string format, naming conventions, or how to obtain valid project names (e.g., from qwen_list_projects).

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 a clear resource ('a project name to its actual root directory'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It is distinct from siblings such as qwen_create_project, qwen_list_projects, and file tools because it performs a lookup/canonicalization rather than creation, listing, or file manipulation.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you have a project name and need its real root directory. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like qwen_list_projects that could also surface project paths, nor any exclusions or conditions stated.

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