whodb_platform_resolve_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious side-effect guarantee that per-call workspace targeting does not change defaults. It omits what happens on ambiguous fragment matches (single best match vs. candidate list) and any error semantics, which matters for a resolve 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its purpose, with zero filler. The scoping clause for workspace follows the primary instruction in the right order.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter documentation and annotations present, the description covers the essentials: what it returns conceptually (an exact project resource) and why to call it first. The remaining gap is resolution-failure and ambiguity behavior, which is not described anywhere.

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% and every parameter including the nested workspace fields is documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'without changing defaults' note for workspace, which the schema's own workspace description largely already conveys.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Resolve a hosted resource name or id to an exact project resource') plus a sequencing rationale ('before reading, planning, or writing it'). It clearly separates lookup from the actual read/write operations, though it never names the near-neighbor siblings (whodb_platform_workspace_resolve, whodb_platform_project_resources, whodb_platform_file_search) that an agent might otherwise pick.

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?

It states the context in which to call it (resolution as a prerequisite to read/plan/write) and clarifies that supplying workspace targets only this call without mutating defaults. There is no explicit 'do not use when…' or named alternative, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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