Get Layer Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds meaning by explaining the result is a 'structural hierarchy' or 'path', giving insight into the return shape. No contradictions exist, and the description enriches the behavioral understanding beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The primary action and object are front-loaded, and every phrase is informative. It follows the 'less is more' principle perfectly.

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 resolver with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains the purpose, expected input type, and the nature of the output. Minor missing details like common use cases or response format examples are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the rich annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented lone parameter. It does add domain context by calling it a 'Fuxam layer ID', which explains what kind of ID is expected, but it doesn't elaborate on format, source, or examples. This is minimal but helpful, placing it above a tautology yet below thorough clarification.

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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' and clearly defines the resource: a Fuxam layer ID to its structural hierarchy. It further differentiates itself from siblings by specifying the use case: understanding where a course, module, or content layer sits in the curriculum or organization tree. This clearly sets it apart from the many list/get tools among its 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'This is useful for understanding where a course, module, or content layer sits in the curriculum or organization tree.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intent is clear and unambiguous. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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