debug_resolve_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies the tool is read-only and diagnostic, and explains the return format and how missing sub-properties indicate unresolved references. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it discuss authorization or rate limits.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the word 'Diagnostic'. It efficiently communicates the purpose and diagnostic guidance without filler words.

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 explains the return value (full resolved value tree) and how to interpret results, which is appropriate for a diagnostic tool. However, it does not mention possible error conditions, result size limits, or performance considerations, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds an example token path format and use case context, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 it is a diagnostic tool to resolve a specific token path under a given theme and return the full resolved value tree. It specifies the verb 'resolve' and the resource, and provides a concrete use case for debugging composition tokens, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 a clear context for usage ('useful for debugging why a composition token doesn't produce the expected writes') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios. It provides interpretation hints for results but lacks exclusions.

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