Resolve Profile to Catalog

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

The description explains the resolution process (resolves to a catalog), mentions output formatting options, and specifies the file path convention ('profiles/<name>/profile.json'). The return type and error behavior are described. Annotations indicate no destructiveness or idempotency, which is consistent. Some behavioral details like file creation are implied but not explicit.

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 clear purpose statement, a detailed parameter list, and an examples section. It is front-loaded with the main action, but the parameter list is somewhat lengthy and could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 the main purpose, parameters, return value, and an example. It mentions the file path convention and optional parameters. However, it does not explain prerequisites (e.g., existence of the profile) or the effect of 'trestle_root', leaving some gaps for a complete context.

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 input schema has detailed descriptions for each parameter, and the tool description repeats this information in the Args section with added context like default values and examples. However, the repetition does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 action 'resolve' and the resource 'OSCAL profile to catalog', matching the title. It specifies the operation and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trestle_author_profile_generate' or 'trestle_author_profile_assemble'.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. No comparisons or explicit conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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