okf_registry_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It suggests a read-only resolution operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, what happens for invalid references, or whether it performs a network/registry lookup.

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 filler. It states the input format and the output in about ten words, making it easy to parse and apply.

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?

The tool is simple: one required string parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the core input/output contract, though it omits failure modes and explicit usage context, which are somewhat mitigated by the tool's low complexity.

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 for the bare parameter name 'Target'. It does so by indicating that the target should be a `@slug/concept` string and that the result is a bundle path plus concept id, adding meaningful semantic context.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resolve' with a concrete resource pattern `@slug/concept` and names the expected output ('bundle path + concept id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling registry tools like list/add/remove and makes the tool's function immediately understandable.

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 intended use is implied: if you have a reference like `@slug/concept` and need a bundle path and concept id, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as okf_get_concept_tool or okf_search_tool, and no exclusions are stated.

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