resolve_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and directionality, but does not mention potential side effects (though likely read-only), error behavior for invalid inputs, or return format. This is minimal and leaves room for agent confusion about edge cases.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb 'Resolves' and communicates the core function efficiently. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple complexity, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without jeopardizing brevity.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete for a basic understanding. However, it lacks information about return values (what exactly is returned), error handling, and possible limitations. For a conversion tool, knowing the response format is important, so the description is somewhat incomplete.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that the parameter 'path_or_uid' can be either a UID or a path and the tool returns the opposite. However, it does not specify formats, validation rules, or how the tool determines which type is passed. This is sufficient for a single-string parameter but lacks depth.

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 a specific action (resolves) and the bidirectional relationship (UID to path or vice versa). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which explicitly handle this conversion. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a UID or path (e.g., file paths, resource paths), which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any sibling tools or conditions for selection. The use case is only implied (when you need to convert between UID and path), but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'not for that' guidance.

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