resolve_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup and suggests fuzzy/descriptive matching, but it does not disclose what happens with multiple matches, no match, case sensitivity, or whether exact matches are preferred.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The parenthetical example earns its place by illustrating the kind of natural-language input the tool accepts.

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?

The output schema is available, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter lookup tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves important resolution behavior (ambiguity handling, match preference) unstated given the absence of annotations.

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 the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that the single input can be a name, alias, or description, which is more than the schema's bare 'name_or_alias' string field provides.

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 verb ('Find which') and resource ('workspace repo'), making it clear this tool resolves an identifier to a repo. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_org or repo_card, but the resolution framing is distinct enough to be understood.

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 example ('the admin dashboard') implies usage when you have an ambiguous name, alias, or description and need to identify the corresponding repo. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives such as repo_card or search_org, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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