resolve_item

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only describes the high-level mapping and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how ambiguity or missing items are handled, what metadata is returned, or whether permissions are required.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and easy to scan, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail captured 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is not sufficiently complete. An agent cannot determine how workspace and type affect resolution, what valid input formats look like, or what the returned metadata actually contains.

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 should compensate. It only clarifies the 'name_or_id' parameter; the required 'workspace' parameter and the optional 'type' parameter are not explained, leaving important call semantics unclear.

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 clear action ('resolve'), a clear target ('an item name or ID'), and a clear output ('canonical ID and metadata'). It is distinct from the sibling tools even though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 intended use is implied: when an agent needs to convert a human-readable name or ID into a canonical ID and metadata. However, it gives no explicit guidance about prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to similar tools such as list_items.

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