resolve_library_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether it needs the library installed or network access, not whether symbol_name being optional means whole-module resolution, not what is returned. Five words cannot cover a mutation-free but opaque lookup operation.

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?

It is short with no filler, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing; there is nothing to front-load because nothing substantive is said.

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?

A two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs the description to explain inputs and expected returns; the description supplies none of that.

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 both parameters are undocumented. The word "modules" loosely hints that library_name identifies the module, but symbol_name — optional, and decisive for what gets resolved — is never mentioned in either place.

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?

"Resolve docstrings for modules" only rephrases the tool name with a synonym swap; "resolve" is ambiguous (fetch? render? look up?). It gives no basis for distinguishing this from siblings like find_symbol_definition or find_symbol_references.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to the sibling symbol-lookup tools. An agent must guess from the name alone.

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