resolve_alias_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains the not-found behavior (`path` and `data.resolved` are null, and `path` is omitted). It does not discuss permissions, errors, or side effects, but for a resolution tool this is a reasonable amount of disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence about not-found behavior is useful but is somewhat awkwardly phrased ('`path` and data.resolved are null (and `path` omitted)'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the core behavior and the not-found case. It does not explicitly cover the optional vault parameter, but that parameter is self-descriptive and optional. Overall, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating the `name` parameter is the note alias or stem to resolve, but it does not explicitly explain the `vault` parameter or the exact format expected. The optional `vault` parameter is left to inference from its name.

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 a specific action ('Resolve a note alias or stem to its real vault path') and names the resource (note alias/stem → vault path). It is distinct from sibling tools like read_note_tool or search_notes_tool because it maps an alias to a canonical storage path rather than reading or searching note content.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: use when you have an alias or stem and need the real vault path. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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