whodb_platform_resolve_resource

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait — per-call workspace targeting 'without changing defaults' — which the annotations do not convey. It omits what happens on ambiguous or failed resolution, which is the main remaining gap.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the scoping behavior. Every clause carries information; no filler or restated title.

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 prose, and annotations plus 100% parameter coverage carry the structured load. The one meaningful omission for a disambiguation tool is its behavior when a query is ambiguous or matches nothing.

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 nested workspace object is already fully described (host/org/project, session-default fallback, discovery tools). The description's restatement of workspace targeting adds only marginal value over the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Resolve a hosted resource name or id to an exact project resource'), which is concrete and actionable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly-named sibling 'whodb_platform_workspace_resolve', so an agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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 phrase 'before reading, planning, or writing it' establishes clear timing/context for when to call this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to skip resolution and call a resource-specific tool directly), so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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