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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (resolving refs) without mentioning read-only status, side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that conveys the purpose directly. The core action is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

With a simple 2-parameter tool and an output schema present, the description plus schema coverage provide enough information to call the tool correctly. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema. The main gap is behavioral transparency, which is addressed separately, but for execution context it is adequate.

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 both playbook_name and playbook_version are already well documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. It merely references the playbook's internal field but not the parameters themselves.

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 states a specific verb 'resolve' and a specific resource: a playbook's 'tool_recipe.skills' refs, converting them to 'full skill records'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_skill_get (which fetches a single skill) and memory_playbook_get (which retrieves the playbook itself).

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 gives clear context that the tool resolves skill references from a playbook, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. An agent could infer the use case, but there is no explicit routing guidance compared to tools that name siblings.

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