Find gid by name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's primary behavior (typeahead search and gid resolution) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, stale data warnings, or that only approximate matches may be returned.

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, tightly-worded sentence that conveys the tool's unique value proposition concisely. There is no wasted text, and it is immediately clear what the tool does and why it matters.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (a typeahead search with no output schema), the description is appropriately complete. It clearly explains the tool's role in the broader workflow of using other Asana tools. A slight deduction because it doesn't hint at the return format of the gid, but that is minor for a search-type tool.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by framing the tool's overall purpose as turning names into gids, which contextualizes all parameters. It does not add new details per-parameter beyond the schema, but with full coverage, a baseline of 3 is reasonable; the clear purpose statement elevates it to a 4.

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-resource structure ('typeahead search') and clearly distinguishes the tool's unique purpose: converting a human-readable name into a machine-readable gid needed by other tools. It directly addresses the core value of this tool versus its siblings, many of which operate on gids.

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 explicitly states the tool is for looking up gids from names seen in the UI, and the workspace_gid parameter schema adds context for using the tool to find its own input. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for finding specific resources.

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