memory_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a key behavioral policy — semantic conflicts are reported, never auto-resolved — and notes the environments where the tool is exposed (MCP server/CLI but not the opencode plugin). It does not cover mutability/reversibility of the merge output, permissions, or error behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its safety guarantee. The trailing parenthetical about plugin availability is slightly tangential but earns its place by telling the agent where the tool exists.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation modes, the conflict-handling policy, and availability constraints. It could say more about what the merge returns or writes, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's purpose ('Memory id or file path to resolve. Omit to list conflicts.') is fully documented in the schema. The description's dual list/merge framing matches the schema but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific resource (git-conflicted memory files) and states two distinct operations: listing them or performing a field-level 3-way merge on one. It is clear enough that an agent understands what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling (e.g., memory_status or memory_pr_status).

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 two modes (list vs. resolve one) imply when to use each, and the schema note 'Omit to list conflicts' reinforces it. However, no alternatives or exclusions are named, and there is no explicit statement of prerequisites (e.g., that a git conflict must already exist). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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