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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that internal/user storage attributes are filtered out by the server, that AI Text bodies are included, that entries carry an integer id for chaining, and that limit defaults to 50. It stops short of stating read-only/safety semantics or permission requirements, which would complete the picture for a mutation-adjacent 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape before the syntax reference, so an agent gets the essential meaning immediately. The syntax examples are somewhat extensive, but they earn their place as non-obvious grammar that cannot be inferred elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does thoroughly: parents, attribute values including AI Text bodies, child counts, and ids. Combined with the server-side filtering note and chaining guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and use the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description goes well beyond the schema by explaining the query grammar: postfix set verbs, the invalid prefix 'children of X' form, set-algebra operators (*, +, -), assignment forms, and mutation primitives. This materially clarifies how to construct the query parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (name-query expression), and details exactly what is returned: matched names with parents, attributes, and child counts. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling discovery tools like list_names and describe_set by its focus on resolving queries and surfacing attribute values.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'after list_names / describe_set to read attribute values that the other discovery tools don't surface,' naming alternatives and the condition that selects this tool. It also notes the returned id chains directly into edit_name_attributes or delete_name, preventing a separate lookup.

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