resolve-library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the main output (exact ID and available versions) but does not discuss error handling, edge cases (e.g., no match found), or whether the operation is read-only. The term 'resolves' implies a lookup, which is helpful, but lacks depth.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, it omits details about failure behavior or output format, which would be useful. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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?

The input schema already covers the 'query' parameter with a clear description and examples (100% coverage). The tool description adds the qualifier 'fuzzy', which is useful context, but does not significantly extend what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resolves' and clearly states the resource: fuzzy library name to exact library ID and available versions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search-docs or get-library-docs, which focus on documentation retrieval rather than name resolution.

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 'fuzzy library name' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when the user has a partial or ambiguous library name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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