skflow_identity_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a useful behavioral detail: 'Pack defaults from manifest.personality_pack or pack.inject_default_into.' However, it does not disclose error behavior, side effects, or what exactly the resulting prompt block contains, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the primary action immediately, then compacts the optional parameter behavior into a dependent clause. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear picture of its purpose and the key default behavior. It could be more complete by explaining the output format of the prompt block or error cases, but given the simplicity and the presence of schema descriptions, it covers the essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the default pack resolution logic (from manifest.personality_pack or pack.inject_default_into), which clarifies how the inject_pack parameter interacts with the system's fallback behavior beyond the schema's simple true/false/string description.

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 action ('Resolve'), the resource ('office identity (+ optional personality pack)'), and the output ('a prompt block for Cursor subagents'). This distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools which retrieve raw data, and from brief validation tools.

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 implies this tool is used when assembling subagent prompt blocks, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools like skflow_agent_get or skflow_pack_get. There are no exclusion criteria or named alternatives, so the usage context remains implied rather than explicit.

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