document_resolve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite ('when the capability is installed') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the capability is absent, or what the resolution behavior or return value is. This is a significant transparency gap for an unannotated tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action ('Resolve a partial document slug'). The conditional clause 'when the capability is installed' adds relevant context without bloat, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It omits critical context such as the return format, error behavior, what 'capability installed' means, and how this tool relates to document_get or document_search, leaving an agent underinformed for invocation.

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 input schema only describes 'partial' as a string with minLength 1, while the description adds that it is a 'partial document slug,' giving the parameter semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not provide format details, examples, or how the partial slug is interpreted, so compensation is only partial.

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 uses the specific verb 'resolve' and identifies the resource as a partial document slug, which is distinct from sibling tools like document_get and document_search. However, it doesn't clarify what 'resolve' produces (e.g., a full slug, document ID, or list) nor what 'capability is installed' means, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like document_get or document_search. The only implied context is having a partial slug and an installed capability, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites beyond the vague capability note, or alternatives mentioned.

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