get_root

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the path is absolute or relative, whether it validates that the campaign exists, what happens with an unknown campaign name, or whether it creates the directory. For a resolver with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized, though it is a fragment that could state one more useful fact instead of stopping.

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?

A simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, so not much explanation is needed. Still, with no annotations the description should say what the return value is (a path string) and how errors are handled, which it omits.

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 the schema documents the single required campaign parameter with an example. Baseline for a fully documented single-parameter schema is a 4; the description adds nothing beyond the schema but does not need to.

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 (resolve) and resource (campaign root directory path), which is clearer than the bare name get_root. Siblings like get_campaign and read_campaign_config are related but the description's focus on a filesystem path rather than campaign metadata or config distinguishes it reasonably well.

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 call this versus get_campaign, read_campaign_config, or list_campaigns. The agent must infer that this returns a path for filesystem operations rather than campaign data.

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