registry / resolve_deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful fact beyond them: resolution happens against a pinned canonical *local* registry, implying static/offline data rather than live chain state. It does not describe failure behavior when a name is unresolvable or what the ambiguity error looks like.

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?

A single dense sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and following with the scoping constraint. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema and zero parameter descriptions, so the definition carries the burden; it covers purpose and the ambiguity rule but leaves the return shape and two of three parameter meanings undocumented. Adequate to attempt a call, not adequate to predict the result.

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 and only partly does: it explains that `task` disambiguates ambiguous names, which is real added meaning. `chain_id` and `name` receive no clarification (e.g., what a deployment name looks like, which chain IDs are valid).

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (resolve a Rootstock deployment) and a sourcing constraint (against a pinned canonical local registry), which separates it from enumeration siblings like registry.list_contracts. It stops short of stating what a resolution yields (address, ABI, metadata), so the output intent stays fuzzy.

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 clause 'ambiguous names require task' gives a conditional usage rule tied to the task parameter, which is genuinely actionable. However, it never says when to prefer this over registry.list_contracts, registry.verify_contract, or registry.abi_catalog, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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