resolve_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors: language-agnostic matching and that an empty query returns the full library list. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup or describe matching/return semantics, leaving modest gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by concrete examples and the empty-query edge case. Efficient; the example list is slightly long but earns its place by showing accepted input styles.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the single input's semantics and the empty-query case, which is sufficient for a simple resolver. It stops short of explaining match behavior on partial/ambiguous names, a minor gap.

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 0% for the single query param, so the description must compensate, and it does: query is the service name, accepted in Russian or English, with four concrete examples, plus the empty-string behavior. This meaningfully exceeds the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource: find a library id by service name. The scope (Russian or English service names, with concrete examples) is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name its siblings get_docs/get_gotchas, but its resolution purpose is naturally distinct from document retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied through the examples and the empty-query behavior (list all libraries), which tells the agent how to invoke it broadly, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against the sibling tools get_docs/get_gotchas.

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