Datasets Lookup Connection Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context: it explains that the POST is only a path-resolution mechanism, defusing the apparent conflict between an HTTP POST and a read operation. It still does not say what happens when the path does not resolve.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste. The core action and the example come first, and the read-only clarification follows as a secondary note.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. What remains missing for a resolver tool with 0% schema coverage is failure behavior and how it relates to the sibling list-paths tool, leaving the agent to infer both.

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 has to carry parameter meaning. The array-shaped `path` parameter is well served by the concrete three-element example, but `connection_id` is unexplained and there is no guidance on case sensitivity, path depth, or whether partial paths are permitted.

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 and resource: 'look up the object at a fully qualified path in a connection,' with a concrete Snowflake example clarifying the path shape. It is distinguishable from datasets_list_connection_paths by semantics (resolving one object vs. listing paths), but the description never names the sibling, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 'e.g. ["DATABASE", "SCHEMA", "TABLE"]' example implies the caller must already have a complete path, which suggests usage context. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to datasets_list_connection_paths for discovering paths first.

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