get_entry_by_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully describes behavior: it resolves the path, returns an EntryDetail, and on failure returns an error object with specific slugs. It also notes that forward slashes are accepted. This is sufficient for a read-only lookup 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 description is well-structured: first paragraph gives purpose, second explains usage, third covers failure. It is concise without being terse, though the failure paragraph could be slightly reduced. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description covers return values (EntryDetail shape), failure modes with common slugs, and usage context. No output schema is present, but the description provides enough information. It is complete for a straightforward path resolution tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds usage examples and context but does not significantly expand on the schema's explanation (e.g., case-insensitivity is in the schema but not in the description). The parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'resolve' targeting a 'backslash-delimited Laserfiche path' to its entry, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_entry' (which uses IDs) and search tools. It explicitly states when to use it: when the user refers to a location by path rather than ID.

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 description explains when to use the tool (user pastes a path, or path authored from known structure) and what to do with the result (feed ID into other tools). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear and differentiates it from alternatives.

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