hpc_resolve_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully adds the no-argument listing behavior (projects plus readable/writable roots), which is genuine context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about errors for unknown aliases or return format.

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 tight sentences with zero waste, and the primary resolve behavior is front-loaded before the fallback branch.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool, the definition covers both modes and hints at what is returned (directory, or project list with roots). With no output schema, a brief note on return shape is the only minor gap.

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: it explains that 'alias' is the project alias to resolve and that an empty alias triggers the listing mode, which is exactly the semantics the schema's bare string with default cannot convey.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (project alias to directory), plus the no-arg fallback behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like hpc_get_file_info or hpc_storage_usage, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 dual-mode behavior is implied: pass an alias to resolve it, omit the alias to list projects and roots. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance or mention of prerequisites, so usage must be inferred from the two branches described.

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