Resolve Token

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

The description reveals the resolution process (following the full chain to a literal) and explains the semantics of each hop's role and overridable flag. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which is consistent. It also clarifies the distinction between bsi and dti token roles, helping the agent understand output implications.

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 well-structured: the first sentence states the core function, the second explains the output semantics, and the example chain is concise and illustrative. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or padding.

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 covers the tool's behavior, interpretation of results, and actionable guidance for overriding tokens. With a single parameter, complete schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is thorough and self-sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 already documents the parameter ('Token name in any form: --bsi-*, --it-*, or $it-*') with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by showing an example but does not add new parameter-level meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 exactly what the tool does: resolves --bsi-, --it-, or $it- variables to their concrete literal values. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like tokens_search or tokens_list_component_vars, which search/list rather than resolve. The example chain clarifies the scope.

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 provides clear context on how to use the resolved output—explaining which hops are safe to override and which are not—and instructs to override --bsi-* variables rather than $it-/--it- ones. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the usage intent is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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