mnemostack_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: 'Read-only; never mutates stored memory' explicitly states safety, and 'runs outside the recall path' plus 'Resolution is confined to the corpus root recorded at ingest — there is deliberately no way for a caller to point it at another directory' provides important scope limitations. It also lists the verdict categories and mentions 'snapshot-hash comparison,' giving rich behavioral detail beyond what structured data could convey.

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 front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: verdict categories, read-only safety, and root-confined scope. It is concise enough at roughly 90 words and avoids redundancy or 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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, explicit safety guarantees, scope restrictions, and the nature of the return value (verdicts and optional fragment). The presence of an output schema means return details are not required in the description, and the tool's simplicity makes this fully complete.

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?

The input schema already documents the sole parameter `chunk_id` with the description 'The [id:...] value from a recall result or answer citation,' achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds only that it resolves the id back to a source document, which is purpose-oriented rather than parameter-specific. This meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 opens with 'Verify a citation: resolve a chunk id back to its source document,' giving a specific verb ('verify'/'resolve') and resource ('chunk id back to source document'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search, answer, invalidate, and health by focusing on citation resolution and verification.

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 description clearly establishes context: 'Verify a citation' and 'Re-reads the CURRENT source' imply it is for verifying existing citations against the current source. It also notes it 'runs outside the recall path,' distinguishing it from retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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