registry_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool computes effective instructions and skill metadata, implying a read-only resolution process, but it does not disclose whether any state changes occur, how defaults are handled, what 'effective' means, or error 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 sentence with no fluff and places the core action first. However, it is so brief that it omits important contextual and behavioral details, making the conciseness slightly excessive.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and has an output schema, which lightens the burden of describing return values. Still, with no annotations, no usage guidance, and no profile semantics, the description is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation and selection.

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 for the undocumented 'profile' parameter. It only restates the parameter name generically and does not explain valid profile values, naming conventions, or how the default 'default' affects resolution.

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 resource ('a profile') with a clear outcome ('effective instructions and skill metadata'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by implying a computation over the profile rather than a search or state operation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like registry_search or registry_validate. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers are provided, so an agent must infer the intended use case from the tool name alone.

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