resolve_clarification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses API credit consumption in one mode, browser-captured Sonnet/Codex usage in the other, and a mock/needs_user fallback behavior. It does not cover all possible side effects, but it meaningfully informs the agent about resource usage and result-dependent actions.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, operational modes, and critical guardrails. The description is front-loaded with the core action and does not waste words on restating schema details.

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 purpose, modes, and usage guardrails, which is substantial. However, it references status values ('needs_user/error') and mock behavior without explaining where these come from, and it leaves several parameters unexplained. There is no output schema, so the agent must infer return semantics from vague hints.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explicitly mentions 'original_request' and 'relevant context' (likely project_context/known_preferences), while failing to explain the required 'question' parameter or optional parameters like session_id and requires_user_input. This is a significant gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Compare') and concrete resources ('Claude and OpenAI answers for a technical clarification'), making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It also draws a boundary with 'Never use this to grant permissions,' which further disambiguates its intent even without 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 provides explicit usage direction: 'Supply original request and relevant context' and instructs when not to proceed automatically ('If status is needs_user/error or mock is true, ask the user instead of continuing automatically'). It also includes a clear exclusion: 'Never use this to grant permissions.' These are concrete when/when-not conditions.

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