resolve_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'SAVES: Claude context for strategic decisions,' which hints at state retention or caching behavior, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only, has side effects, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 structured with bullet points but includes extraneous information like 'SAVES: Claude context for strategic decisions' that doesn't directly clarify the tool's function. It's not front-loaded with core purpose, and some sentences (e.g., the TIP) could be more integrated. It feels cluttered rather than concise.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the analysis outputs, how suggestions are formatted, or error cases. For a tool with 2 parameters and behavioral uncertainty, it should provide more context to compensate for the missing structured data.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('path' and 'suggestions') well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of path formats or what 'suggestions' entail. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 the tool 'Analyze a file system path and suggest correct MCP parameters,' which provides a clear verb ('Analyze') and resource ('file system path'), but it's vague about what 'suggest correct MCP parameters' entails and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'analyze_project_structure' or 'trace_execution_path.' It lacks specificity in how it differs from other analysis tools in the list.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'WORKFLOW: System diagnostics and function discovery' and 'TIP: Start with health_check, use list_functions to explore capabilities.' This provides clear context on when to use it (as part of diagnostics) and references alternatives (health_check, list_functions), though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to all sibling tools.

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