resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns descriptors with source refs, handles failures with suggestions, and accepts a kind filter. While it does not mention read-only status or performance characteristics, it provides sufficient behavioral detail for a query-like 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 concise at two sentences plus a trailing snippet. It is front-loaded with the core action and example. The trailing 'kind: instance|term|net.' could be integrated but overall is efficient.

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 description does not explain the return format of 'descriptors' or 'source refs', which is important since there is no output schema. It also lacks details on the did-you-mean mechanism and how 'limit' affects results. For a tool performing resolution, this leaves gaps.

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 description adds meaning for 'path' (with example) and 'kind' (possible values listed), but does not explain the 'limit' parameter. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 resolves a hierarchical path to descriptors with source refs, and provides an example ('top.u_uart.tx_o'). It also mentions the output kinds (instance/term/net). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool over others.

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 explains the primary use case (resolving a path) and mentions error handling (did-you-mean suggestions), but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'find' or 'get_hierarchy'). No explicit 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisites are given.

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