resolve_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the use of Graph or SharePoint REST and the lack of active-site changes, which is useful side-effect information. However, it does not state what the resolution returns (e.g., site metadata), whether it needs special permissions, or error behavior, leaving key behavioral aspects opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word earns its place, conveying the tool's purpose and key constraint efficiently.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not explain what 'resolve' yields (site details? validation?) or any prerequisites/failure modes. The absence of annotations and output schema means the description should carry more explanatory weight, so this leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only defines siteUrl with format uri and no description, and the description's 'SharePoint Online URL' phrase primarily restates the property name rather than adding deeper semantics like expected format, examples, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate for the missing parameter details.

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 resource ('a SharePoint Online URL'), and the key constraint ('without changing the active site'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_active_site and set_active_site_from_tab. This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination.

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 phrase 'without changing the active site' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion criteria. It implies usage for read-only URL resolution without site-switching side effects, but leaves room for explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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