Resolve Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about the dual functionality (project/group resolution with conditional listing), which is valuable behavioral information not captured in annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication details beyond the optional credentials, or pagination behavior.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and conditional behavior. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 moderate complexity (path resolution with conditional listing), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the dual outcome (project or group) and conditional listing behavior. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description doesn't attempt to document return values, which is appropriate.

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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 clearly states the tool resolves a GitLab path to either a project or group and lists group projects when applicable. It specifies the verb 'resolve' and resources 'project or group', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_project' or 'get_group_projects' beyond mentioning the path resolution aspect.

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 context by mentioning 'when applicable' for listing group projects, suggesting this tool handles both project and group resolution. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_project' or 'get_group_projects', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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