desktop_resolve_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it resolves to a safe project path but does not explain what 'safe' means, whether validation is performed, or if it has side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral depth.

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 concise sentence that delivers the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description could be adequate. However, it does not explain what constitutes a 'safe project path', error handling, or the return format. It covers the input types but leaves gaps in the overall understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'project'. The description adds significant meaning by specifying that it accepts project names, directory names, or whitelist paths, which clarifies acceptable inputs beyond the schema's plain string type.

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 the tool's action ('resolve') and resources ('project name, directory name, or whitelist path') and outcome ('safe project path'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like desktop_list_projects which lists projects, or desktop_open_cc_project which opens a project in Claude Code.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as desktop_open_cc_project or desktop_list_projects. The description does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or context of use.

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