resolve_document

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral outcomes: resolved absolute path, candidate list for ambiguous names, and helpful error for not found. This explains the tool's return behavior and implies a non-destructive read operation. Missing details like case sensitivity or permissions are minor for a resolver.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and output behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers return values (path, candidates, error), usage triggers, and downstream integration with sibling tools. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'name' and 'location'. The description adds contextual examples ('the report on my desktop') and confirms the optional nature of location, but does not substantially extend beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Finds') and resource ('.docx files'), clearly stating the tool resolves friendly names and optional locations to absolute paths. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_document and search_document by focusing on name-to-path resolution.

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 states when to use: 'when a user refers to a document by name ... rather than by full path.' It also provides a clear follow-up instruction to use read_document or search_document with the resolved path, guiding the agent on alternatives and next steps.

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