resolve_ref

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'via the RefIndex' but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple read-only lookup, the description is partially adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and key information. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential functionality. It states the input, output, and mechanism. However, it could mention return format or error handling for completeness.

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% for the single parameter 'ref', so baseline is 3. The description adds 'stable alias' and the mechanism, providing some context beyond the schema's 'Alias string to resolve', but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameter's format or constraints.

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 input ('stable alias/ref'), and the output ('entity name'). It mentions the mechanism ('via the RefIndex'), which helps distinguish from similar tools like resolve_tag. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from list_refs or get_aliases_for_tag, but overall purpose is well-defined.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_tag or list_refs. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or expected context. The description implies it is for stable aliases but does not elaborate.

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