Resolve Page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that resolution is served from a local index, that verification happens against Graph on a miss, and that the index is repaired as a side effect. This is meaningful beyond the tool name, though it does not detail return shape or failure behavior.

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?

Three sentences cover the core transformation, the recommended usage context, and the stale-ID maintenance behavior. The most important information is front-loaded with a concrete example, and every sentence earns its place.

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 resolver tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough operational context: what it does, when to use it, and how it keeps the index fresh. It does not explain all possible combinations of optional parameters or error outcomes, but those are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing that 'title' can be a free-form human description such as '今日任务 / 香港' rather than only an exact title, and it reinforces that section and notebook disambiguate duplicates. This goes beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.

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 states a precise verb and resource: it 'Turns a human description of a page... into a real page ID'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like search_pages by emphasizing local-index resolution and Graph verification, so an agent can tell what this tool uniquely does.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before reading or editing a page you named rather than identified.' It explains why stored IDs go stale and how resolution works on a miss, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not formulation.

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