document_dereference

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

The description discloses that the tool modifies the document by pulling external references inline, indicating a mutation. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, reversibility, error handling (e.g., for unresolvable references), or confirmation that the operation is destructive.

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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words, perfectly front-loading the key action and target.

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 core purpose acceptably, but given the lack of annotations and output schema, it would benefit from additional context about when to use this tool, potential failures, and the extent of modification to the document.

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 covers the single 'session' parameter with a description, and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, achieving the baseline for high schema coverage without enriching parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Resolve' and the object 'all $ref references' with the action 'pulling external references inline', which is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like document_find_refs (which only finds refs) and document_transform (which performs other transformations).

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 need to resolve $ref references, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites.

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