identify_appliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes that the tool 'returns ranked matches with confidence' and that it is a resolve/lookup operation implying read-only, but it does not explicitly state if it has side effects or destructive potential. The description adds some transparency but leaves safety assumptions unconfirmed.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose, then the workflow, then the output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized and structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the main use case and workflow. It explains the role in the broader toolset (first step before get_operation_package) and mentions ranked matches. However, it could elaborate on the output format or confidence interpretation, but overall it is complete enough.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that query and panel_labels are used for identification. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Resolve which appliance an agent/robot is looking at, from observed text or panel labels, to an OPERANDI catalog object.' It specifies the verb (resolve), resource (appliance), and distinguishes from siblings by noting this is the first call in a two-step workflow with get_operation_package.

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 gives a clear usage directive: 'Call this first, then get_operation_package with the returned slug.' It implies when to use (as an initial identification step) and hints at the workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings like find_by_capability, but the context is sufficient.

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