resolve_job_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs fuzzy matching and returns both the matched job and close candidates, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (or the absence of them), error behavior when no match is found, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. 'Show' implies read-only but it is not explicit.

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. It front-loads the key trigger ('Given a rough name') and then states the expected output. Every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains what input is expected and what will be returned, which is enough to make the first call. Minor gaps like no-match behavior and explicit read-only confirmation exist, but they do not block correct usage.

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 clarify the parameter. It does: 'query' is a rough job name, with the example 'dev backend'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema which only labels the field 'Query'. It could be more detailed (e.g., case sensitivity, matching rules), but for a single string parameter it is sufficient.

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 action ('resolve') applied to a resource ('job name') and defines the expected output: the matched job and close candidates. The example 'dev backend' and the focus on fuzzy matching distinguish it from siblings like list_jobs and get_job_info.

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 phrase 'Given a rough name' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the job name is approximate or partial. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the usage scenario is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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