project_path_to_uid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the core conversion but omits important behavioral details such as whether the path must exist, what happens on invalid or missing resources, whether the operation is read-only, and what the return value format is beyond the implied uid:// string.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter conversion tool, the description provides the essential transformation but is incomplete in context: no error behavior, no explicit return type, no notes about whether the resource must already exist. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would be needed to fully cover edge cases.

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 bare `path` string parameter. It adds the useful context that the path should be a res:// project path, but it does not provide examples, format constraints, or any details about accepted path variants or error conditions. This is marginal compensation for a single undocumented parameter.

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 names both input and output formats ('res:// project path' to 'uid:// identifier'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling tool uid_to_project_path, which performs the inverse operation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a res:// path needs to be converted to a uid:// identifier. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives (e.g., uid_to_project_path), or provide any prerequisites or context about when such a conversion is needed.

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