resolve_mcdev_project_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: read-only, returns paths not contents, no dependency confirmation, blocked/ambiguous yields no editable companions, never reads auth or logs, no remote-freshness guarantee, no atomic sandbox. It omits error/edge behavior for invalid credentials or missing roots, but the disclosure is well above average for an unannotated tool.

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 capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, but it is a dense multi-clause run-on packed with qualifiers ('bounded', 'companions', 'qualified') that slows parsing. Later sentences earn their place as constraints; the closing concurrency warning is useful but slightly tacked on.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description should clarify return shape and parameter meaning, but it only says 'returns paths' without structure, and five parameters remain undocumented. For an 8-param, 6-required tool this leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only 25%: metadataType and workspaceRoot are documented in the schema, and the description adds meaning for metadataType and hints at externalKey as customerKey matching. However, rootKind (retrieve/deploy), credential, businessUnit, maxDepth, and maxEntries are unexplained in both schema and description, leaving most of the 8 parameters opaque.

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 a specific resource (local project artifacts) and enumerates the supported metadata types and layouts, then clarifies the output is paths rather than file contents. 'Qualified local resolution' is jargon-heavy, but the added sentence 'Returns paths, not arbitrary file contents' pins down the actual operation and implicitly separates it from read_mcdev_artifact_source.

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?

It gives a clear exclusion ('other types and layouts are unsupported') and scope boundaries, but never names a sibling alternative or says when to prefer this over inventory_mcdev_project_artifacts or read_mcdev_artifact_source. The agent must infer the routing condition from the type list.

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