nexus_resolve_domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it is backed by the v2 GraphQL API and does not consume v1 REST quota, and it explains that results are returned 'best matches first' with a warning to take domainName from the intended node. This gives agents actionable insight into how results should be handled.

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 well structured and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by clear usage guidance and a compact return shape block. Every sentence contributes information about purpose, usage, or output, with no redundant 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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke it correctly: what it does, when to call it, what it returns, and how to interpret the results. There are no critical gaps in context.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter game_name, including examples like 'Skyrim Special Edition' and 'fallout 4.' The description reinforces the meaning by explaining the game_name is the display name and the output is the slug, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's existing description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a game display name to its domain_name slug,' which immediately states the tool's exact purpose. It also clarifies that this is a convenience wrapper and that most other tools require the lowercase slug, making its role distinct from siblings like nexus_search_games or nexus_get_games.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance: 'Call this first when you only know the game's name, then pass the returned domainName value to the other tools.' This establishes clear usage context and sequencing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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