resolve_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the potentially mutating side effect ('may create a local project registry entry') and explains how to force read-only behavior. It does not mention error paths or permissions, which is a gap, but the key side effect is clearly stated.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value: usage timing, side effect control, and alternative tool. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Output schema exists, covering return format, so that part is satisfied. The description covers usage timing, side effects, and alternatives, but omits the meaning of 'title', the precedence between path and slug, and failure behavior. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 workspace_path and project_slug as the resolution inputs, and create_if_missing with its effect. However, the 'title' parameter is not mentioned at all, and the precedence or exclusivity of workspace_path vs project_slug is not clarified. Partial coverage, but not complete.

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 begins with 'Resolve the current Hub project from a workspace path or slug' – a clear verb (resolve), resource (current Hub project), and the two input forms. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming 'upsert_project' for metadata changes, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It gives explicit usage timing ('Use at session start before session_digest'), clarifies the behavior of create_if_missing and its read-only counterpart, and points to upsert_project as the alternative for metadata changes. This is direct, unambiguous guidance.

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