Items Resolve

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

The description adds return-shape details ({ok, files} or {ok:false, problems}) and the dangling-reference failure mode, and explains the identity-based resolution behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 focused sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause carries useful information. No redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, return values, and failure behavior, and annotations cover safety. The main gap is parameter format detail, but the description is otherwise adequate.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description partially compensates by identifying item as an item id and registry as an items.json registry. However, it does not explain how to provide the registry (path vs content) or the item id format, leaving ambiguity for invocation.

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 states a precise action—resolve an item-reference to artifact file(s)—and adds identity semantics and the registry source, distinguishing it from path-based or manifest-resolution tools. It is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like items_validate and where_used.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. The description defines what the tool does but does not tell an agent when to prefer it over items_validate, items_check_manifest, or project_resolve_manifest.

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