plate_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 reveals that unresolved nouns return resolved:false with a reason, that sources require no account, and that the agent must not draw bodies, materials, fonts, or marks. It does not describe the shape of a successful resolved:true result, but it is meaningfully transparent.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, call timing, no-account sources, failure behavior, and the drawing constraint. There is no filler, and the most important operational instruction 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?

The description covers when to invoke, which sources are available, what happens for unresolved nouns, and a key design constraint. Since there is no output schema, the main gap is the lack of detail on what a successful resolution returns, but the description is still complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents the nouns array and domain parameter. The description adds context about how nouns are treated and what unresolved resolution means, but it does not explain domain-specific behavior or the exact success payload. This is adequate but not additive 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 states a specific operation: resolve every visual noun in a brief to a real asset or an honest null. It also clarifies its role relative to the broader workflow by saying to call it before writing any scene or page code.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: before any code is written. It also explains that certain live sources need no account and that unresolved nouns come back with a reason. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like plate_inspect or plate_check.

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