simulate_module_resolution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses the tool's behavior: it runs the resolution algorithm, returns the resolved path, and lists every candidate path tried and rejected. It could be more explicit about failure return behavior, but the core behavioral traits are clear.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence adds value by explaining the tool's benefit. No wasted words.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does explain the return value (resolved path plus rejected candidates) and the supported strategies. It lacks exact return structure details, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already structured. This matches the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states it runs TypeScript's exact module resolution algorithm and returns the resolved file path plus all rejected candidate paths, distinguishing it from simpler alias-resolution tools. The action is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear use context: to eliminate guesswork about why imports resolve or fail under Node16/NodeNext/Bundler strategies. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like resolve_module_alias.

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