resolve_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral details: handling of ~, ., and ..., and the role of cwd and distro home. It implies a pure computation with no side effects, which is sufficient for a path resolution tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and key nuances without any redundant words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simple utility tool, the description is quite complete: it states the input (path, cwd, distro), the behavior, and the output (absolute POSIX path). It lacks explicit error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a pure resolution function.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that ~ resolves to the distro home, and that relative paths use the working directory, enhancing the schema parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('WSL POSIX path'), and specifies the exact behavior: converting possibly-relative paths to absolute, handling ~, ., and ... This distinguishes it from siblings like translate_path and read_file.

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 usage context is implied by the description (i.e., when you need to resolve a path), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like translate_path are provided.

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