resolve_related_code_repos

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the full return shape: candidates with fields (repo, confidence, reason, source_root), an 'ambiguous' flag, and _meta.bridge_available. It also explains the matching logic (exact = high, containment = medium/low). This provides valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, key caveat + return format, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids any redundant or off-topic content.

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 complexity (cross-system identity mapping, multiple matching confidence levels) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a thorough explanation of both input validity and output structure. It covers the bridge tool relationship and the ambiguity flag, making it sufficient for correct invocation. No major gaps.

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 single parameter 'repo' is fully described in the schema, but the description adds semantic nuance by clarifying that the docs repo identifier uses a different identity model and is NOT valid as a code_repo. It gives an example of an invalid handle, which helps the agent understand the domain. This goes beyond the schema's baseline.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: 'Map a jdocmunch docs repo to candidate jCodeMunch code repo handles by source_root.' It identifies the exact verb (map), resource (docs repo to code repo handles), and method (by source_root). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining the bridge to link_code_to_symbols/get_undocumented_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?

The description explicitly says 'Use it to pick the right code_repo for the link_code_to_symbols / get_undocumented_symbols bridge tools.' It also warns that a docs handle is NOT a valid code_repo, which is a critical usage constraint. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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