resolve_stencil

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the two possible return statuses ('resolved' with path, 'needs_download' when not installed) and outlines the internal discovery sequence, giving an agent an accurate model of what to expect. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the language implies no mutation.

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 with no filler. The first sentence establishes the tool's purpose and discovery mechanism, and the second defines the return statuses. Every clause adds operational value.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it resolves, how it searches, and what it returns in both installed and missing cases. It does not describe the exact shape of the resolved path or any error conditions, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter, diagram_type, is already fully described in the schema with a concrete example ('activity' or 'flowchart'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating that a diagram type has masters. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and a specific resource ('which installed Visio stencil supplies a diagram type's masters'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_diagram_types or get_visio_status by focusing on stencil resolution rather than diagram types or Visio process status.

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 explains the tool's discovery order ('discovery-first: running docs -> candidate files -> master index') but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions like 'use before add_shape' or 'use when a stencil may not be installed' is provided.

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