resolve_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the tool does not download, fuses echocn curated list with mirror search, and sorts by phase2 criteria. This gives a solid safety and behavior profile, though 'phase2' is left undefined and empty-result handling isn't mentioned.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second packs usage scenarios and behavioral specifics. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 context, and behavioral constraints (no download, source fusion, sorting) well. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. Minor gaps are the unexplained 'phase2' term and no mention of zero-result behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented with descriptions. The tool description only restates that query is a map title and limit is candidate count, adding no meaningful semantic beyond the schema.

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 resolves map titles into workshop candidates and notes it does not download. This clearly distinguishes it from installation and search tools in the sibling set.

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 '适用' section provides concrete scenarios: when users ask about map existence/ID or before installing via install_campaign. This gives clear context for usage, though it doesn't explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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