mix_resolve_processing_intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the useful prerequisite that the tool operates on 'loaded profiled controls', which is not in the annotations. It also reiterates non-applying behavior, providing context beyond the structured metadata.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it immediately understandable.

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 a read-only annotation, an output schema available, and a 100% parameter coverage schema, the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. It could optionally mention the output format, but since an output schema exists, that is not required. The description is adequate for an inspection tool.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already present, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('map') and resource ('intent to loaded profiled controls') and explicitly notes it does not apply settings, clearly distinguishing it from applying tools like mix_apply_plan. It conveys the core functionality without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'without applying settings' implies this tool is for inspection or preview, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling alternatives are mentioned, making usage guidance only implicit.

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