realpath

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true; the description reinforces 'read-only, no side effects'. It also explains failure behavior (clear error if target does not exist) and output format (JSON). However, it references a nonexistent '--no-symlinks' flag, which is a minor inconsistency with the actual 'strict' parameter, slightly reducing clarity.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it does, properties (read-only, error behavior, output format), and usage guidance with alternatives. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, output (JSON), and failure modes. It references a sibling tool. However, it could mention handling of multiple paths or edge cases like symlink loops, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about resolution behavior but introduces a confusing reference to '--no-symlinks' instead of using the schema's 'strict' parameter. Overall, marginal added value beyond 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 resolves paths to absolute canonical form, following symlinks and resolving relative components. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'readlink' by noting this tool is not for reading symlink targets without full 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('to normalize paths for comparison or before file operations'), when-not-to-use ('not for reading symlink targets'), and names the alternative ('use readlink'). This is exemplary guidance.

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