resolve_workspace_entities

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping behavior by kind and name, but it does not disclose pagination behavior via 'first' and 'offset,' matching semantics for the name search, or whether results are returned as IDs, summaries, or full entities. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with no redundant words. It efficiently states the action and the primary filtering dimension, so every part earns its place.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and ambiguous 'resolve' semantics, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly. It omits the meaning of pagination parameters, the role of spaceId, and what the response contains, leaving too much to inference for a tool that appears distinct from nearby search/list/get tools.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate for the gap. It only restates the kind and name parameters, while first, offset, and spaceId are left unexplained in the description; the schema provides ranges for first/offset and a hint for spaceId, but the tool description adds little semantic value beyond that.

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 the resource ('workspace entities') scoped by 'kind and optional name search,' which conveys the core operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like search_entities, list_entities, or get_entity, and 'resolve' remains somewhat vague about what the output represents.

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 usage: call this tool to resolve workspace entities filtered by kind and optionally by name. It gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_entities, list_entities, or get_entity, and it does not mention pagination or space scoping, so the usage context is only partially conveyed.

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