Resolve Ref

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the operation is lightweight ('without fetching full details') and returning exactly the type and numeric id. It does not contradict the read-only annotation, though it omits edge-case behavior like invalid ref handling.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and result format. It contains zero filler and every word adds value, making it highly concise and clear.

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 simple read-only resolution tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers key aspects: input (ref, project), output (type and numeric id), and the lightweight nature. It lacks details on error handling or response shape beyond type/id, but given the low complexity and good annotations, it is nearly complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both `ref` and `project`. The description reinforces that the ref is project-scoped but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resolves a project-scoped ref to its type and numeric id, using the specific verb 'Resolve' and naming the resource ('a project-scoped ref'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly contrasting it with fetching full details, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you have a ref like #436 and need only its type and id without full details. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., issue_get, user_story_get) or state when not to use it, but the lightweight intent is evident.

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