resolve_module_alias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that resolution uses 'paths and baseUrl from the resolved tsconfig,' implying a read-only operation. It does not mention failure modes or return format, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a simple mapping tool.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with the primary action and a concrete use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundant language.

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 simple two-parameter lookup tool, the description is sufficient to understand purpose and usage context. It lacks explicit return/error details, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with examples. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond noting that tsconfig paths/baseUrl are used for resolution; the schema already documents both parameters with illustrative examples.

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 the verb 'Map' and clearly identifies the resource (TypeScript path alias) and the output (physical file location). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on compiler options, emission structure, and config overlaps.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful when an agent needs to navigate to the actual file behind an import.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against alternative sibling tools.

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