resolve_project

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

No annotations are provided, but the description explicitly states the tool is read-only and does not create directories or mutate state. It also lists the return fields, providing full behavioral transparency.

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, front-loading the purpose and listing outputs and safety in a concise, efficient manner without unnecessary 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?

For a simple config resolution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, inputs, returns, and behavioral safety. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds context by explaining the overall function (resolving cq.yaml and environment) but does not add per-parameter insights beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the key resources ('cq.yaml + CQ_CONFIG_JSON env'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like inspect_project or validate_project by focusing on config resolution.

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 read-only and does not mutate state, providing clear context for safe usage. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like inspect_project or validate_project.

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