resolve_references_batch

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

Annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool 'resolves all mentioned types', but does not elaborate on performance, scope limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal extra context.

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 concise, with three clear sentences: the action, details, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant elements.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the result looks like (e.g., list of references, structure, or metadata). For a tool that resolves references from a documentation page, this is a significant gap. The description would benefit from outlining the return format or behavior.

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%, and the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (e.g., sourceUrl example, maxReferences bounds, filterByType enum). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Deep dive into all types and APIs referenced in a documentation page. Resolves all mentioned types, methods, and properties.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and outlines concrete use cases, making 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 explicit when-to-use scenarios ('Use when: analyzing complex APIs, understanding type requirements, exploring API ecosystems'). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools (e.g., get_related_apis), which slightly limits guidance.

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