palinode_resolve

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that a tight budget can shrink the answer but never turns a conflict into a settled one, and that it returns conflicts with every side intact and explicitly unknown items. This goes beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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 with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides a usage pointer, then a concise behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists what the tool returns (assertions, evidence, replacements, conflicts, unknowns), which covers the essential return semantics. It also clarifies the supported intent and the behavior under budget constraints. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing.

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 fully documents all six parameters. The description hints at the query/ref distinction ('about a question, or about one record') but adds no syntax or additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter 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 tool resolves the current state of memory: it asks what memory holds RIGHT NOW, and lists the kinds of information returned (assertions, evidence, replacements, conflicts, unknowns). It explicitly differentiates from palinode_search by stating 'Use instead of palinode_search when you want the current answer rather than a list of hits.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the primary alternative (palinode_search), with a clear condition: when you need the current answer rather than hits. It also implies it is for resolving a question or a single record, which clarifies scope.

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