resolve_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns null when nothing resolves (indicating genuine non-existence), which is critical for error handling. It also reveals that it honors aliases frontmatter, adding meaningful context. However, it doesn't discuss whether the path is absolute or relative, or any potential side effects, but for a read-only lookup, this is acceptable.

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, well-structured paragraph that packs in examples, behavior, and usage guidance without wasting words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary details, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers input formats, alias handling, return behavior (null on failure), and how it differs from alternatives. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 schema has only one parameter with 100% coverage, providing a basic description. The tool description adds examples of accepted formats (bare text, full link syntax, or path) and explains the aliases behavior, which enriches understanding beyond the schema. However, since the schema already describes the parameter, the extra value is incremental, not dramatic.

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's purpose: turning a wikilink into a real file path, with a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('wikilink'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting that it resolves the actual referenced note rather than finding similar ones, as get_similar_notes or search_notes would.

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?

It provides strong guidance on when to use: whenever a [[link]] is encountered and the actual file is needed, and explicitly when not to: instead of guessing filenames or using semantic search. It names the alternative (semantic search) and explains why it's inferior for this purpose, making the use case very clear.

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