resolver_field_path_checklist

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

With no annotations, description bears full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions inference behavior when destination_entity_id is absent and a default for source_entity_id, but does not state if the operation is read-only, required permissions, error handling, or output format. Lacks key transparency for a resolver 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?

Description is very concise: one purpose sentence plus two numbered observations. Front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter behavior but omits return value details and error conditions. It is somewhat complete for a simple resolver but lacks output specification needed for correct usage.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains that omitting destination_entity_id triggers inference from field_key prefix, and notes the typical source_entity_id value for business checklists. This adds useful context beyond schema properties.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: resolving the correct FieldPathId for business checklist items. The specific mention of 'checklist de negócio' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'buscar_field_paths' which likely handle general field path retrieval.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Observations provide parameter hints (inference, default source_entity_id) but no when-not-to-use or conditions for selecting this tool over similar ones.

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