current_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns statuses plus compact history and why edges, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, permission requirements, or meaning of "why edges," leaving behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the verb and purpose, and every clause contributes meaning.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a high-level summary but lacks details on the return structure (e.g., format of statuses, history, why edges), parameter semantics, and potential failure modes. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for a complex 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of "stable state key" but does not elaborate on parameter interactions, the significance of as_of_epoch, or how owner_scope / owner_key affect resolution. It offers marginal added value beyond 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 uses the specific verb "Resolve" and clearly identifies the resource as "current memory/fact state for a stable state key." It also lists the specific return statuses (current, not_found, ambiguous, unresolved_conflict), which distinguishes this from search or save operations among siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for resolving a stable key's current state but does not mention when to prefer search_raw, get_observations, or timeline, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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