resolve_cwd

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

With no annotations present, the description discloses the core safety/behavioral trait: it performs no commands and only validates configuration. It also details both success and failure return shapes, including fields like matchedRoot and roots.

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?

Three sentences carry the purpose, usage trigger, return contract, and no-command safety note without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains input flexibility, output shape, failure data, and the absence of side effects. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents path as a string to verify. The description adds meaning by clarifying that path may also be a friendly project name and by explaining how the parameter affects the return value (matchedRoot, cwd).

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 names a specific action—verifying whether a path or friendly project name is inside the server's allowed roots—and identifies the concrete output: the exact cwd to use. This clearly separates it from command-running siblings like run_safe_command and list_allowed_roots.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when you need to find out whether and with which cwd you can work in a project. It also states the negative condition: it runs no commands and only validates configuration, signaling when not to use it.

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