cantrip_review_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that 'project' is 'Required in environments where cantrip_connect cannot write to the filesystem,' adding some behavioral context about system dependencies. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if resolution closes the escalation), or error handling, which are critical for a mutation 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a specific parameter guideline. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and a key parameter nuance, but as a mutation tool, it should include more about behavioral traits (e.g., what 'resolve' entails, any side effects). The context is adequate but has clear gaps for safe agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by explaining that 'project' overrides '.cantrip.json' and is useful in specific contexts, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 verb ('Resolve') and resource ('an open escalation'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like cantrip_review_accept/reject/dismiss by focusing on resolution with a message, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct from similar tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the 'project' parameter ('to override .cantrip.json — useful in cloud-hosted or multi-project contexts'), which helps guide usage in specific environments. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cantrip_review_accept or cantrip_review_dismiss, missing sibling differentiation.

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