ariel_resolve_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'with metadata' output hint but does not disclose any other behavioral details such as auth requirements, rate limits, or what the metadata contains.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to the purpose.

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, read-only, non-destructive tool, the definition is largely complete. The only notable gap is that 'with metadata' is vague and the absence of an output schema means an agent must infer what metadata is returned, but this is minor relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 documents the single parameter with a description identical in substance to the tool description. The tool description adds no extra detail such as URL format examples, accepted protocols, or normalization behavior, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('a bsky.app URL to an AT URI'). This distinguishes the tool's purpose from the many fetch, create, and action siblings, even though no sibling performs an identical conversion.

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 usage context is implied by the description: use this when you have a bsky.app URL and need an AT URI. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites such as authentication.

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