uid_to_project_path

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion operation and does not disclose error handling for invalid/missing UIDs, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a resolver tool without annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of redundancy. Every word earns its place, directly communicating the core conversion task without extraneous details.

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 (one parameter, no output schema or annotations), the description covers the essential input-to-output mapping. It lacks explicit error/edge-case behavior and return type details, but for a straightforward resolver it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 only defines 'uid' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that the expected format is a 'uid:// identifier', which adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema type. It could further explain the exact format requirements (e.g., prefix validation) but already provides meaningful semantic context.

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 'Resolve a uid:// identifier to its res:// project path' clearly states the specific verb (Resolve), the input resource (uid:// identifier), and the output (res:// project path). It inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'project_path_to_uid' 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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you have a uid:// identifier and need the corresponding project path. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference the inverse sibling tool 'project_path_to_uid' for the opposite conversion, leaving the guidance somewhat implicit.

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