resolve_model

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 implies a read-oriented lookup and that platform context is optional, but it does not state side effects, error behavior, canonicalization semantics, or what occurs for an unresolvable identifier.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core 'registry identifier' is front-loaded. It earns its place word-for-word, though the brevity borders on under-specification; content gaps are accounted for in other dimensions.

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?

For a tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a crowded sibling set, this description is not complete enough for confident invocation. Endpoint is unresolved, output semantics are not summarized, and the tool is not positioned against alternatives. A rich output schema could compensate, but the description itself leaves too much implicit.

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 undocumented parameters. It adds some meaning by identifying 'identifier' as a registry identifier and marking 'platform' as optional context, but it leaves 'endpoint' completely unexplained and provides no format or value guidance for any 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 description states a verb/resource pair ('resolve ... registry identifier') and notes optional platform context, so it is not a tautology. However, 'resolve' is ambiguous—it could mean lookup, canonicalization, disambiguation, or version resolution—and no sibling differentiation is offered. Among tools like get_model_profile, compare_models, and propose_registry_update, an agent cannot tell what this tool uniquely resolves.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the many related sibling tools. The description mentions no exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer use from the name alone.

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