laserfiche_entry_get_by_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the success payload (EntryDetail, conditional web_url tied to a configured link template) and the exact failure envelope with error slugs (not_found, auth_failed), which tells the agent both the auth prerequisite and the miss case. It omits rate-limit or permission-scope detail, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: identity first, routing rule second, return/error contract last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content 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 lookup with an output schema, the description supplies everything the agent needs beyond structured fields: when to reach for it, what it hands back, and how failures are shaped.

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 single parameter already documents root-relative, backslash-separated, slash-tolerant, case-insensitive paths with examples. The description's 'backslash-delimited' adds only a restatement, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a backslash-delimited Laserfiche path') and its output ('its entry'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like laserfiche_entry_get and laserfiche_entry_search_by_name that take ids or names rather than paths.

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 when the user refers to a location by path' gives a clear triggering condition, and naming the downstream consumers (list_folder, get_entry, get_field_values) shows the intended workflow position. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the id-based sibling laserfiche_entry_get, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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