resolve_includes

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions recursion and reporting unresolved files, but fails to state side effects (e.g., file modifications), error handling, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff, achieving brevity. However, the conciseness sacrifices necessary detail; a third sentence on parameters or usage would improve it without bloating.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return value (e.g., list of resolved files? count?), behavior when all includes resolve, or error conditions. Agent lacks enough info to use confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It does not clarify what 'source' (file path?) or 'mql_root' (base directory?) mean, leaving the agent to guess. The default value of null for mql_root is unexplained.

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 ('Recursively resolve #include directives') and the output ('Reports unresolved files'), making the tool's purpose specific and distinct from siblings like compile or install_include.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., compile also resolves includes). The description implies usage for checking includes, but lacks context on prerequisites or when to prefer this over other tools.

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