resolve_indirect_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. It simply states 'resolve', which is vague, and fails to mention any limitations or consequences, making it insufficient for safe usage.

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 sentence without unnecessary details, but it includes the preamble 'Nutrient PDF MCP Server -', which adds slight noise. It is concise overall, but could be more direct by removing the prefix.

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 is extremely brief and does not explain what an indirect object is, how resolution works, the expected output, or any error handling. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is far from complete enough for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not clarify the meaning of parameters like 'depth' or how to use them effectively.

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 action (resolve) and the resource (indirect object by its ID), making it easy to understand the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_pdf_object_tree', which might also involve object retrieval, but the focus on a specific object by ID is implied.

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 the sibling 'get_pdf_object_tree'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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