capability_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adds useful behavioral structure by exposing the 4-tier fallback chain ending in UNAVAILABLE. However, 'Resolves' is ambiguous — the agent is not told whether this executes side-effecting actions, returns a plan, or requires permissions, so important behavioral transparency is missing.

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 front-loaded sentence with a clear colon-separated hierarchy; no wasted or redundant phrases. The tier list is compact but meaningful.

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?

This is a high-complexity meta-tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what an agent should expect on success and failure. It does not describe return values, side effects, or how it relates to the many sibling capability tools, leaving a significant gap.

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 both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema and leaves 'context' as a generic optional object.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolves') and resource ('any intent or missing tool'), and the 4-tier hierarchy gives it a recognizable scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like capability_discover or capability_audit, which weakens its differentiation.

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 an intent is unmatched or a tool is missing, but it never states when not to use it or names alternative capability-related tools. The hierarchy hints at routing behavior without giving an agent explicit selection criteria.

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