resolve_cwd

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that it "runs no commands — it only validates configuration" and by spelling out the success ({ ok, cwd, matchedRoot, name? }) and failure ({ ok, error, roots }) payloads in the absence of an output schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each sentence contributes: use case, return shapes, and the no-side-effects guarantee. Slightly dense with escaped quotes, but well ordered and free of filler.

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 output schema exists, and the description compensates by documenting both success and failure shapes plus the fact that no commands are executed. For a single-parameter validator this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100% for the single path parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's "or a friendly project name" adds a small nuance but essentially restates what the schema already says; no format, resolution order, or matching rules are provided.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: verifies whether a path or friendly project name falls inside the server's allowed roots, and returns the exact cwd to use. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_allowed_roots or run_safe_command without opening a schema.

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?

"Use this tool when you need to find out whether — and with which cwd — you can work in a specific project" gives a clear triggering context. However, it never names the obvious alternative (list_allowed_roots) or states any when-not condition, so routing between the two roots-related tools is still left to inference.

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