Resolve Workspace Resource

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and side-effect profile is already provided. The description's word 'fresh' implies dynamic data, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or external calls. With annotations covering the basics, this is adequate but not enriched, scoring 3.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the core action and result. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 parameter, a rich schema description, and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and the schema explains the input. The only minor gap is that the description doesn't explicitly mention any preconditions like the URI belonging to the current workspace or that fresh metadata may require network access, but the output schema and annotations fill most needs. A 4 is appropriate.

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 schema description for the 'uri' parameter is already detailed, explaining it is a 'Stable Workspace resource URI previously returned in a tool response's resource field,' providing full meaning. The main description adds no parameter-specific information, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra credit is warranted for the description itself.

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 a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a stable Workspace URI') with an outcome ('fresh compact metadata'). This is distinct from sibling tools like search_workspace or refresh_workspace_catalog, which involve different operations. It fully explains what the tool does in one concise sentence.

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 schema parameter description adds context that the URI is 'previously returned in a tool response's resource field,' which strongly implies when to use this tool (when you have a resource URI from a prior call). However, the main description does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use the tool, lacking direct comparison to search_workspace or refresh_workspace_catalog. Clear context with no exclusions justifies a 4.

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