resolve

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains the return behavior (success, ambiguous, not found) and the meaning of the result. It does not mention any side effects, which is acceptable for a resolution tool, but could be more explicit about read-only nature.

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 well-structured with a brief introductory sentence followed by parameter details and return value explanation. It is slightly long but not verbose; every sentence adds value.

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 accepted inputs, return formats, and parameter details. It omits preconditions like requiring a Python project or environment, and does not explain the output schema fields in detail. However, given the output schema exists, the description is adequately complete.

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 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly by detailing the identifier forms (bare name, FQN, re-exported, file:line, file only) and explaining the project_path default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 explicitly states it resolves any identifier form to a canonical Handle, listing specific accepted forms. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_references' or 'resolve_at' by focusing on identifier resolution to definition-site handle.

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 implies usage through the listed identifier forms, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'resolve_at') and does not specify when not to use it.

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