sg_resolve_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses the ranking priority (image > text; video deferred), return types (resolved, requires_choice, etc.), and the two-phase process. However, it does not detail error handling or side effects beyond the download path.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence followed by a concise explanation of the ranking and return values. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 tool has multiple phases and return types, the description covers the core logic and outcomes. The presence of an output schema (context signal) means it doesn't need to detail return structure, but the description could still benefit from clarifying when download_path is required or optional.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (asset_id, choice, text_prompt, download_path). The description adds moderate context by explaining the two-phase workflow and the use of 'choice', but does not elaborate on how text_prompt or download_path behave beyond what the schema states.

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 the resource 'generation input for an Asset', differentiating it from sibling tools like sg_create or sg_find. It specifies the ranking logic and possible outcomes, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage for resolving source media but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sg_find. It describes the return values but lacks guidelines on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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