radiant_resolve_agent_identity

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions return categories but does not state whether the call is read-only, what happens for unknown or invalid WAVE names, or any authentication or error behavior.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The action and resource come first, followed by a compact summary of return values, and the description avoids repeating schema details.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives only high-level return categories. It omits expected return structure, error handling, and the distinction from other wave-name tools, so it is adequate but not 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 fully covers wave_name with 'Agent's WAVE name', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new format, constraints, or examples; it only reuses the term 'WAVE name' without enriching parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb (Resolve) and a specific resource (an AI agent's identity from its WAVE name), and it lists the return content (capabilities, pricing, API endpoint). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling radiant_resolve_wave_name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like radiant_resolve_wave_name or radiant_build_agent_profile. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Resolve'; no exclusions or routing hints are provided.

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