Resolve Path

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already disclose the safety profile. The description adds that the tool conditionally lists group projects, but does not fully explain the output format (e.g., different return structures for project vs group). This is a minor gap.

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 conveys the core functionality without any filler. Every word 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?

The description covers the purpose but lacks details about return values (no output schema) and edge cases (e.g., what happens if path doesn't exist). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, some additional guidance on output structure would be helpful.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking 'first' and 'after' to the group listing behavior, but the parameter descriptions already adequately explain their roles.

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 a project or group and lists group projects when applicable. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project (for a single project) and get_group_projects (explicitly for groups).

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 when you have a path and need to determine if it's a project or group, and optionally list group projects. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios where other tools like get_project are more appropriate, but the context is clear enough.

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