resolve_related_code_repos

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes output structure (candidates with fields, ambiguous flag, _meta.bridge_available) and matching logic (exact vs containment). Lacks details on authorization or side effects, but it's a read-only mapping.

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?

One dense paragraph front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value. No extraneous words.

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 no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail on output structure and matching logic. It covers input, usage, and warnings for a moderately complex tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one param 'repo'. The description adds meaningful context: that docs handles are not valid code repo handles, and gives an example. This goes beyond the schema description.

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 maps a docs repo to candidate code repo handles by source_root. It specifies the verb 'map', resources, and differentiates from siblings by mentioning bridge tools like link_code_to_symbols.

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 says to use it to pick the right code_repo for link_code_to_symbols/get_undocumented_symbols. Also warns that docs handles are not valid code repo handles, providing clear usage context.

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