profile_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real behavioral content: it discloses that cycles and ambiguous parent names cause rejection, which tells the agent to expect failures. It stops short of stating permission/IO implications of searching directories or how resolution conflicts are reported, though the presence of an output schema lowers that burden.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the failure-mode clause earns its place. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, which is a different problem from verbosity.

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?

For a tool that searches directories and resolves inheritance chains, the description omits the domain model entirely (what a profile/parent is), leaving both parameters undocumented. The output schema covers return values, but the input contract and invocation context are not complete.

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 for 'path' and 'search_directories' and does not. 'Inherited' and 'parent names' hint at the lookup model, but neither parameter's format, role, or ordering behavior is explained anywhere.

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?

Specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('inherited JSON values') with the key behavioral property (cycle/ambiguity rejection) stated up front. It doesn't link itself to the profile-domain siblings (profiles_list, profile_export, settings_read), so an agent must infer the relationship from the name alone.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus profiles_list, settings_read, or settings_compare. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no mention that it appears to read from filesystem search directories.

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