cimd_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and thoroughly discloses behavior: validating HTTPS, fetching the metadata document, schema checks, caching with TTL, SSRF protections, and returning CIMD error semantics. This goes well beyond a simple 'resolve' summary.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses clear Args/Returns sections. Each sentence adds meaningful detail about validation, caching, or error behavior, with no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers input semantics, the resolution process, side effects (cache TTL), security (SSRF), and error output. It provides a complete mental model without needing the output schema.

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 0% and the schema only names 'client_id' with a title. The description's Args section explains the meaning ('The client_id URL pointing to the CIMD document') and gives a concrete example URL, fully compensating for the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Resolve an OAuth client_id URL to its CIMD metadata document.' It distinguishes cimd_resolve from sibling tools like cimd_cache_info and cimd_clear_cache by focusing on resolution and validation, not cache inspection or clearing.

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 gives clear context by stating it 'Implements the server-side CIMD flow' and lists prerequisites (HTTPS URL, schema validation). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the server-side framing and validation steps make the intended use unambiguous.

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