doc_resolve_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It merely states the action but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the link is invalid, or what the output structure looks like. The only extra detail is the plan requirement, which is not behavioral.

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 core purpose in 10 words. 'PRO+ plan' is a necessary constraint. There is no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and meaningful parameter schema, the description is the sole source of context. It lacks details on input format, return value, error handling, and distinction from related tools, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke and interpret results.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuous. The description mentions a 'doc link' but does not specify how to pass it, especially given that the schema allows arbitrary additional properties (additionalProperties: true). This ambiguity is not compensated by the description, though the baseline for 0 params is 4, so a slightly lower score reflects the missing input guidance.

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 tool's function: resolving a doc link to its GitHub URL. The verb 'Resolve' is specific and the resource and outcome are unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like doc_search_links_to or doc_canonical_ref, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. The mention of 'PRO+ plan' indicates a requirement, but not usage context. Without exclusions or comparisons to siblings, the description offers no help in choosing this tool over similar ones.

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