resolve_id

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses it returns candidates but omits details like case sensitivity, fuzzy matching, what happens if no match, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 effective sentences, no redundant words, and front-loads the key action and return behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavior but misses important context like return format, supported query syntax, and how to use results with sibling tools like get_dysfunction.

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 has 0% description coverage; only a 'query' string is defined. The description adds that it accepts partial IDs, slugs, etc., but does not specify format, constraints, or examples, leaving the parameter meaning under-specified.

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 the verb 'canonicalise' and specifies the resource types: partial ID, display_id, slug, or dysfunction name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dysfunction by clarifying it returns candidates for selection rather than a single entity.

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?

It provides implicit guidance that the tool returns candidates and the caller picks, suggesting use for disambiguation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings, or mention any prerequisites or when not to use it.

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