resolve_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the path is resolved 'taking into account the active directory and current project,' but does not disclose whether the tool accesses the filesystem, checks existence, or what the return value looks like. 'Resolves' remains vague.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and free of redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core behavior and context, earning a top score.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and side effects. It does not, but for a simple path resolution tool, the purpose is largely conveyed. The missing details about output and error behavior leave clear 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?

The schema already documents the path parameter with examples (absolute, relative, ~). The description adds 'current project' as an additional resolution context, which goes beyond the schema's mention of 'active directory.' This is a meaningful value-add, though not extensive.

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 the specific verb 'resolves' with 'path' as the resource, and adds context about active directory and current project. This makes the core purpose clear, though it doesn't explicitly state that the result is an absolute path or distinguish it from sibling tools like change_directory or get_current_directory.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'active directory and current project' implies a use case, but there are no direct comparisons or exclusions. The agent is left to infer when path resolution is needed.

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