ado_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing two traits annotations cannot: no credential is acquired (a side-effect boundary) and resolution never falls back to cwd. It omits what a failed resolution looks like, which keeps it off a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the calling constraint immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so explaining what 'resolved context' returns would be the description's job, and it doesn't. Combined with five undescribed nested fields and no stated error/fallback behavior, the definition is adequate for a single-parameter read tool but leaves real gaps.

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 0% and the single parameter is a nested object with five undocumented fields (profile, project, repoPath, repository, organization). The description names only target and repoPath, leaving profile/repository/organization semantics entirely unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 two specific resources (target, credential profile), and the clause 'without acquiring a credential' implicitly separates it from the credential-acquiring sibling ado_config. It stops short of naming the sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

'Supply explicit target or absolute repoPath; no cwd guessing' gives a real precondition for calling the tool, which is more than nothing. However, it never says when to choose this over ado_config or the *_list tools, nor what happens if the precondition is violated.

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