resolve_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('resolve') but doesn't describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, performance characteristics, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage, making it minimally transparent.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Resolve an xmi:id reference to get element details') earns its place by specifying the action, input, and outcome, making it highly 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?

Given the complexity (a reference resolution tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'element details' include, error cases, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with 'xmiId' documented as 'The xmi:id to resolve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which applies here.

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 verb ('resolve') and resource ('xmi:id reference'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_class_details' or 'search_by_name' by focusing on ID resolution rather than name-based or class-specific queries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'find_classes' might also use IDs), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid xmi:id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_class_details' (which might return similar element details). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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