Resolve filesystem path (read-only)

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: variable expansion rules, symlink following, mount detection, Android-equivalent path spellings, and the exact result fields returned. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 definition is front-loaded and every major sentence contributes useful information. It is somewhat dense and run-on in the first sentence, but the density is justified by the number of path-expansion rules being communicated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately lists the return object fields. With only one parameter, explicit annotations, detailed expansion semantics, sibling differentiation, and return-shape disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: concrete equivalent input forms, relative-path handling against the working directory, and the specific meanings of `~`, `$HOME`, `$PREFIX`, and `$TMPDIR`. The schema already covers required/non-empty behavior, so this is not a full 5.

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 a specific verb and resource: resolving and validating one filesystem path, including expansion, symlink following, mount reporting, and alternative spellings. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `path_adapter`, so an agent can select it without inspecting either schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: useful when a path must be handed to a shell command or another tool, and not needed for paths already known-good on plain Linux. It also draws a clear sibling boundary: `path_adapter` reports the environment map, while `resolve_path` reports one concrete path.

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