resolve_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that: it defines the provenance field, guarantees matches[0] equals actual wikilink resolution, explains ambiguous: true, and specifies empty-match behavior with didYouMean. That is exactly the return-shape and ambiguity semantics an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and accepted input forms, then the result contract, then the routing hint. Every sentence adds a distinct fact (provenance, matches[0] guarantee, ambiguity flag, empty case, paths-only) with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values — and it does: paths, provenance, ordering, ambiguity, and the empty-result hint. For a one-parameter read-only index lookup, nothing necessary 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the accepted reference forms. The description adds only marginal framing ('wikilink target') beyond the schema's enumeration, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource: resolves a note reference (wikilink target, bare name, extensionless path, alias) to canonical vault-relative paths. It explicitly separates itself from content-reading siblings by stating 'Returns paths only — resolve first, then read_notes.', so an agent can distinguish it from read_note/read_notes/search without opening schemas.

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?

It gives clear usage context and an explicit next step ('resolve first, then read_notes') and frames itself as a pure index lookup rather than a content fetch. It stops short of saying when to prefer it over search or query_notes for lookup-shaped questions, so the alternative routing is present but not exhaustive.

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