resolve_project_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the mapping from identifier to data but does not mention any side effects, error handling, authentication requirements, or whether the tool is read-only. The lack of behavioral details limits transparency for an agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the return value ('schedule+budget matches bucketed by entity') but does not specify the exact structure or error handling. It is fairly complete for a simple resolver, but could be improved by noting what happens when a query matches no project.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'query' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description adds significant meaning by specifying what types of identifiers are accepted: PID, FMS ID, name, partial. This fully compensates for the missing schema description.

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 clearly states the tool resolves any project identifier (PID, FMS ID, name, partial) into schedule and budget matches bucketed by entity. It explicitly mentions input types and output, and differentiates from siblings by advising to call this first for any named-project question.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Call this first for any named-project question.' This tells the agent when to use this tool before other project-specific tools like get_project_budget or get_project_schedule.

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