resolve_css_api

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a structured report about validity, hallucinated references, and alternative suggestions. Does not mention side effects, but the tool appears to be a pure analysis operation based on input.

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 action and output. No wasted words; every part 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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, inputs, and the structured output. It lacks details on the exact format of the report but is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by explaining the role of each parameter: libraryId for targeting a library, cssText and htmlText for resolving references, tagName for the target component. This enriches the schema descriptions without redundancy.

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?

Description clearly states it resolves CSS references (::part(), custom properties, slots) against CEM data and returns a structured report with validity and alternatives. Distinguishes from sibling tools like check_css_vars by explicitly covering all three reference types in one tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE shipping any CSS to verify...' providing a clear usage context. Does not explicitly list when not to use or contrast with alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and well-placed.

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