Resolve Path

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

The description adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by explaining the dual resolution behavior. However, it does not disclose that the output format varies based on resolution type or any edge cases. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description provides moderate additional transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core behavior. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but could be slightly more comprehensive without losing conciseness.

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?

The description covers the main behavior but lacks details about the output format, which is absent in the output schema. Given the tool's complexity (conditional behavior based on path type), more context would be helpful for correct usage. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only states the overall purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource 'GitLab path', clearly indicating it determines whether a path refers to a project or group and lists group projects when applicable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project and get_group_projects.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project or get_group_projects. It implies a general use case but lacks guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer.

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