Resolve Note Wikilinks

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

The description discloses all key behaviors: extraction, resolution by basename, handling of alias and heading syntax, return of null for unresolved links, and read-only nature. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and adds detail beyond them.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, but it conveys all necessary information: the action, the input format, edge cases, and safety. No superfluous text.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers the full behavior including edge cases (unresolved links) and is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'path', already defining it as 'Vault-relative path for the note'. The description does not add further parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 extracts and resolves [[wikilinks]] from a note, specifying handling of aliases and headings, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like read/write notes. The verb 'extract and resolve' combined with the resource 'wikilinks' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to resolve wikilinks in a note). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the narrow scope makes the usage obvious. Sibling tools have different purposes, so no confusion.

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