resolve_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool finds references, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format, partial match behavior, or any side effects. It is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a usage example. No extraneous information; every sentence is valuable.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It could be improved by referencing the output format, but is largely complete for the tool's scope.

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 50% (only category has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining 'query' as a 'symbol or topic' and 'category' as 'Plesk documentation categories', but lacks format details or constraints beyond the schema.

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 tool finds files referencing a specific symbol or topic, with an explicit verb 'Find' and resource 'other files'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_mcp_plesk_dev_docs' by focusing on references specifically, not general search.

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 mentions usefulness for finding usage examples, implying when to use, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternative tools. Sibling tools suggest alternatives, but no comparison is made.

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