Mnemostack Resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: read-only, never mutates stored memory, re-reads the current source, confines resolution to the ingest-time corpus root with no way to redirect it, and defines the possible verdicts (intact/source_changed/moved vs changed/missing/unresolvable). It also discloses inclusions such as the snapshot-hash comparison and fragment when locatable.

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 purpose in the first clause, followed by the verdict taxonomy and constraints. It is somewhat long, but each sentence carries distinct information (verdict meanings, read-only guarantee, scope confinement), so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description instead covers what the schema cannot: read-only semantics, corpus-root confinement, and the meaning of each verdict. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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% and the single parameter's provenance ('the [id:...] value from a recall result or answer citation') is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the id-to-document relationship but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a citation: resolve a chunk id back to its source document.' This is clearly distinct from siblings like mnemostack_search, mnemostack_answer, or mnemostack_remember, and an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is explicit — use it to verify a citation produced by recall or an answer — and it notes it 'runs outside the recall path,' which clarifies its place in the workflow. It stops short of naming a competing sibling or stating when-not to use it, so no explicit alternative routing is provided.

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