resolve_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well by adding a substantial identity warning: SuiNS names are self-chosen, unverified, and potentially misleading. It does not detail response format, error behavior, or explicit read-only status, but for a lookup tool the main behavioral risks are addressed.

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 functional description is front-loaded and unambiguous, and the identity warning is long but substantive in an investigative context. No sentences are wasted, though the warning could be slightly tightened.

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?

The key constraint is stated and the lookup behavior is clear, but with no output schema the agent is left without return-shape or failure-mode information. It also does not specify what happens when both name and address are supplied, which is a plausible edge case.

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 already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the critical at-least-one requirement and clarifies that name and address are opposite directions of the same lookup. It also gives a concrete .sui example and the identity warning adds meaning to the name 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?

The opening sentence states the exact operation: resolving a SuiNS name to an address and reverse-looking-up an address to a name. It is specific, anchored to the .sui namespace, and clearly distinct from sibling tools like identify_address or get_object.

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 does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tool or exclusion condition. The 'at least one of name or address' sentence is an invocation constraint rather than usage guidance.

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