tentra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('list of team or user handles') and the rule-based resolution mechanism, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first defines the tool's purpose and mechanism, the second specifies the return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete—it covers purpose and return format but lacks behavioral details like error cases or performance characteristics. Given the 2-parameter input with full schema coverage, it's adequate but could be more informative about operational context.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of path formats beyond the schema's example, no clarification on workspace_id scope), meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Resolve the owner(s)'), target resource ('file path'), and mechanism ('according to the workspace CODEOWNERS rules'), with a distinct purpose from sibling tools like 'get_architecture' or 'get_contracts' that focus on different resources.

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 is provided. While the description implies usage for ownership resolution, it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_decisions_for' or 'get_service_code_graph' that might handle related workspace queries.

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