resolve_source_module

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that resolution depends on exported 1C XML metadata, which is a useful prerequisite, and the verb 'resolve' suggests a read-only lookup. It does not mention side effects, failure modes, or the shape of the returned identifiers.

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 entire definition is one efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes the core purpose.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should clarify return format, parameter roles, and prerequisites. It mentions exported metadata but leaves sourceRoot and the identifier structure unspecified, so the definition is not fully actionable for an agent.

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 0% and the description does not define either parameter beyond implying sourcePath is a BSL path. sourceRoot is entirely unexplained, leaving an agent uncertain whether it is optional, how it relates to exported metadata, or what format it should take.

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 names a specific operation (resolve), input (BSL path), and output domain (RDBG object/property identifiers), and the sibling list shows no other tool performs this translation. Some domain jargon is unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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 implies when the tool is useful—when an agent has a BSL source path and needs debugger identifiers—but it never states this explicitly or distinguishes it from sibling debugger operations. No alternatives or when-not-to-use cases are mentioned.

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