solidworks_resolve_reference

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

The annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it 'reports deleted/invalid entities,' which is extra behavioral insight not covered by annotations, though it does not describe other potential side effects or error conditions.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It effectively communicates the core action and a key outcome without unnecessary detail.

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 the two parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not clarify the format or meaning of 'reference,' the role of 'document,' or what the tool returns beyond reporting invalid entities, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Neither parameter ('document' and 'reference') is described in the schema or the tool description. The schema coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation of what a 'reference' is or how 'document' affects resolution, leaving parameter usage ambiguous.

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's action ('Resolve a persistent reference in its original document') and an additional behavior ('reports deleted/invalid entities'). This is sufficiently specific and distinguishes it from related tools like solidworks_persistent_reference.

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 any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks conditions, exclusions, or context about typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer the intended usage 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.