resolve_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions that operations are done 'without loading full markdown' and returns indexes, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Basic transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it omits crucial usage guidelines and behavioral details, which slightly reduces conciseness value.

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?

With 8 parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return format, behavior when called with defaults, or how to interpret the results. Important context 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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like cwd or mode affect the behavior in more detail.

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 it returns a compact dynamic context plan, classifies zones, recommends tool profile, and returns matching skill/workflow indexes. This is specific and distinguishable from siblings like list_workflows or search_by_tags.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for obtaining a context plan, no guidance on when not to use or comparison with siblings like search_by_tags or list_workflows is provided.

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