resolve_path

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses explicit error behavior: unresolved IDs are reported rather than guessed, and ambiguous site names return an error listing candidates. This adds valuable behavioral context about failure modes, which annotations do not cover.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a design note, and a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the content easy to scan and understand.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations, and output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, error behavior, and typical source of the IDs. No critical context is missing; the output schema handles return-value documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter details almost verbatim in the Args section, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify types, formats, or edge cases beyond the schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Resolve an opaque path ID to a WAN interface, AnyNet link, or VPN leg.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/query tools like get_wan or get_routing by focusing on resolution of opaque IDs. It also notes the design principle of not guessing, which further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 usage context by stating path IDs are 'typically copied from ... output of a routing/WAN tool such as get_wan or get_routing.' This tells the agent when to use resolve_path, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives or name sibling tools as fallbacks. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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