resolve_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ordered resolution strategy (registry metadata → llms-full.txt/llms.txt → GitHub README), distinguishes two failure modes (nonexistent package vs. real package with no reachable docs), and discloses the side effect that the result is saved so get_docs works for that name. It does not say whether an existing saved resolution is overwritten or how rate limits/timeouts are handled.

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 pipeline and outcome are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the failure-mode distinction follows. Four dense sentences with little waste, though the paragraph is longer than strictly necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the reported fields (source, homepage, candidates tried, chosen URL, kind) and the failure cases. It is nearly complete, missing only caching/overwrite behavior for the saved resolution.

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 parameters (name, ecosystem) are already documented in the schema with an enum and an example. The description only hints at ecosystem selection via 'to pick the ecosystem' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Resolve any npm or PyPI package name to a docs source') plus the resolution pipeline it uses. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_docs by noting that get_docs does the same thing implicitly for unknown names.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule: 'get_docs does this implicitly for unknown names; call this to see the details or to pick the ecosystem.' That names the alternative (get_docs) and the conditions that select this tool over it.

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