jms_resolve_terminal_target

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or whether it performs network calls. The word 'resolve' implies a lookup with no side effects, but this is not explicit. There is no mention of potential failures or behavior for invalid references.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, and it immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple resolution utility.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context about the tool's role in the terminal workflow (e.g., that it should be used before acquiring sessions), and it does not mention edge cases or required preconditions. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer integration points with sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'user-facing asset and account references,' which maps loosely to asset_ref and account_ref, but it does not explain the format of these references, the meaning of protocol, or how defaults work. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what a user might infer from parameter names.

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 a specific purpose: resolving user-facing references into concrete IDs. It uses an active verb ('resolve') and identifies the resources (asset and account references). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jms_list_assets or jms_get_asset, though the resolver role is distinct enough to infer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this should be called before terminal session acquisition or that it complements other lookup tools. The phrase 'needed by terminal entrypoints' hints at usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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