memshelf_resolve

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

Adds significant detail beyond annotations: union of rows/keys, rebuild of INDEX.md and stats.svg, running doctor, no auto-merge of conflicting episodes. IdempotentHint already present, but descriptions enriches behavioral understanding.

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?

Single sentence with clear front-loading of purpose and key behaviors. No verbose or redundant elements.

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?

Covers conflict resolution behavior, safe usage outside conflict, and key outcome (unresolved episodes). With output schema present, return info not needed. Minor gap: no mention of required shelf state, but sufficient.

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?

Description does not mention parameters; schema descriptions exist for 'shelf_path' and 'commit'. With 0% description coverage, the agent relies on schema, which is adequate due to good schema descriptions.

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 tool resolves multi-writer conflicts and rebuilds derived files, with specific steps (union, rebuild, doctor). It distinguishes from siblings by addressing a unique conflict scenario.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (conflict of two parallel sessions) and notes safety outside conflict (degrades to rebuild). Does not explicitly exclude other tools, but context is clear.

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