resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup returning a URI but says nothing about ambiguity handling (multiple matches), no-match failure, or whether it selects the best/first result — significant gaps for a name-to-ID resolver.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and output front-loaded and an inline example that earns its place. No filler.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input shape and the return type (URI), which is most of what is needed. It is still missing failure/ambiguity behavior, which matters for a resolution tool.

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% and the single parameter is a bare 'text' string, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning with the format hint and example ('Blinding Lights by The Weeknd'), clarifying the expected 'title by artist' input, but it does not state accepted variations or matching rules.

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 gives a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('track name') plus the output form ('its URI'), with a concrete example. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'search', which could plausibly be used for the same task, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as 'search', nor any prerequisite or precondition. Usage is only weakly implied by the purpose sentence.

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