gdbx_name_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does add one useful note: server-side PoW+sig verification. However, it does not explain what this verification means for the caller, error behavior, or side effects, leaving the behavior only partially transparent.

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 short sentences with no filler. Purpose and example are front-loaded, and the verification detail is kept separate and compact.

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?

For a one-parameter resolver, the description provides the core purpose and an output example, but it omits not-found/error behavior, any caller-side authentication or PoW requirements, and how this differs from the DID resolver sibling. These gaps make it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'name' parameter with 'Name without .gdbx suffix', so the baseline is 3. The description's example reinforces the format, but it does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('verified .gdbx short name') with a concrete example mapping 'absup' to 'https://absup.org'. This clearly differentiates it from DID resolution and name listing siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, and no sibling tool is mentioned as an alternative. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the 'Resolve' verb.

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