items_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the identity-based resolution model, the return shape {ok, files}, and the failure mode {ok:false, problems} for dangling references. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or registry format expectations, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and semantics. It is efficient, though the parenthetical explanation makes it slightly heavy. No wasted sentences.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: what resolution means, the identity model, and the exact return/failure shape. It is nearly complete, missing only alternate-tool guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'item' is an item id and 'registry' is an items.json registry, which adds meaning beyond the bare string types, but lacks format or path details. This is a reasonable partial compensation.

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 specific verb (resolve) and resource (an item-reference to artifact files against an items.json registry), and explains the identity semantics. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the purpose is clear and distinguishable from items_validate and items_new.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like items_validate, project_resolve_manifest, or project_check_references. It explains what happens internally but provides no usage context or exclusions.

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