resolve_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention error handling, not-found behavior, network requirements beyond the schema, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, and there is no information about response format.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes only the essential usage constraint. 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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core purpose, the bidirectional resolution, and the input constraint. However, without an output schema or annotations, it could benefit from additional details about return values (though these are implied) and edge cases. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraint that at least one of 'name' or 'address' must be provided, which is not enforced in the schema, and clarifies the 'address' parameter is for reverse-lookup. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool resolves SuiNS names to addresses and performs reverse lookups, using a specific verb ('resolve') and resource (SuiNS name/address). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like identify_address by focusing on SuiNS domain resolution.

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 implies usage context (when you need to resolve a SuiNS name or reverse-lookup an address) and states the constraint that at least one of 'name' or 'address' must be provided. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to siblings like identify_address.

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