resolve_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says what the tool does, but does not disclose whether the result is a location, code snippet, or symbol kind; nor does it mention behavior for unresolvable symbols. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for such a read-only lookup.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's core function and the supported definition types. Every word adds value, with no repetition or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the key input concepts and the expected definition kinds. However, it could be slightly more complete by hinting at what the returned definition contains (e.g., file/line), but this is a minor gap given the low complexity and clear schema.

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 100% for both 'name' and 'symbol', so the schema already clearly documents the parameters. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema's existing descriptions, resulting in baseline value.

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 uses a specific verb ('resolves') and resource ('symbol to its definition'), and enumerates supported definition kinds (function, type alias, interface, class, enum). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_references (usages) and inspect_function (detailed inspection).

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 the tool is for finding a symbol's definition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of related tools like get_type_hierarchy or find_references. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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