content_resolve_guid

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the description's marginal contribution is the relative-path normalization convention, which is useful. It says nothing about behavior for an unknown/stale GUID (error vs. empty) or whether paths use forward slashes, which are the realistic failure modes for a resolver.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the output contract is placed immediately after the verb+resource so it is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the input is a single documented-in-prose parameter. The only meaningful omission is not-found/error behavior for a resolver, which is a small gap for a tool this simple.

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 single parameter is a bare 'id' string, so the description carries real weight by clarifying that it is a content asset GUID rather than an actor/asset-registry id. It stops short of stating the GUID format or where to obtain one.

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?

States a specific verb (resolves) and resource (content asset GUID) plus the exact output shape (path relative to Content/). An agent knows precisely what it does, though it never contrasts itself with siblings such as content_asset_info or content_search that also take asset identifiers.

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 on when to use this versus content_search/content_asset_info, and no precondition noted (e.g. needing a GUID already in hand from another call). Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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