asana_typeahead

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with those. The description adds value by explaining the return is a GID resolution and that it is 'fast lookup' with default behavior (count, workspace, resource_type). No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The purpose, target resource types, and use case are all packed into the first sentence. The second sentence adds the decisive when-to-use context. Well front-loaded.

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?

For a pure lookup tool with readOnly/indempotent annotations and an exhaustive resource_type enum, the description covers the invocation scenario. It does not describe the response shape, but the lack of an output schema and the MCP context make that less critical for a resolution-type tool. Missing just a tiny note that the result is a list of matches, but the GID resolution intent is clear.

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%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description clarifies the purpose of the query parameter (partial name) and the resolution outcome (GID). It also hints at 'rich default opt_fields' vs override, which helps the agent understand the return richness. That adds value beyond the schema alone.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Resolve a partial NAME → GID across the workspace for any resource type' with exact enumerated types. It distinguishes itself as a name-to-GID resolution tool, unlike the many task/project getters and search tools among siblings.

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?

States when to use: 'Fast lookup when you do not know the GID.' It implies this is the entry point for resolving IDs before calling other tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives like asana_search_tasks, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to pick typeahead over direct GID-based getters.

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