Resolve Model

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 naming deterministic normalization, the three status outcomes, and the instruction to show `candidates` on `needs_confirmation`. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but this tool appears to be a safe read-style lookup.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the usage guidance is packed into the second sentence, and the status contract is summarized compactly at the end.

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 description covers purpose, usage timing, and statuses well, but the unexplained `endpoint` and `platform` parameters create a real gap for agents deciding whether to provide them. The output schema can handle return values, but it cannot compensate for missing parameter semantics.

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 for the three parameters. It only alludes to vague platform names and version suffixes, but never explains `endpoint` or `platform`, leaving two of three parameters semantically undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pairing: 'Match an identifier against the local registry, tolerating vague input.' It clearly distinguishes this from researching, comparing, or lifecycle-checking models, and the 'Check here before researching a model' line reinforces its role as a lookup/normalization step.

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?

'Check here before researching a model' is an explicit usage directive, telling the agent this tool is the first stop for identifier resolution. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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