findObjectPath

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds only domain context about package provenance, not behavioral details like return format, error conditions, or required permissions, which are left unspecified.

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 only two sentences and not overly verbose, but it is not front-loaded with the primary intent; the action is implicit and the first sentence defines the output rather than the operation. The second sentence, while explanatory, is tangential to how to call the tool.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description doesn't specify the exact output or any constraints. It leaves the agent unsure about the format of the returned path and whether any special handling is needed, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

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 fully documents the single objectUrl parameter with a clear description, and the tool description adds no further parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 states the tool returns the workbench path of an object, but it frames it as a noun phrase rather than an action, lacking a clear verb like 'find' or 'get'. It does not explicitly mention the input parameter (objectUrl) or how it differs from sibling tools that also deal with object metadata.

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 mentions activation uses this to fill in a parent URI, which hints at a use case, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the activation context alone.

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