resolve_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is deterministic, sources answers only from profile or saved answers, never invents, and falls back to asking the user. This provides strong behavioral transparency beyond the minimal schema info.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Deterministic answer') and packs in source, fallback, and a behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not detailed here), the description covers the core behavior well. It explains the decision flow (profile/saved answers, else ask_user) and the no-invention rule. However, it does not address edge cases like missing application_id or conflicting saved answers, and the parameter semantics are absent, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the parameters (application_id, field_label, options, field_type). Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description gives no guidance on how they relate to the resolution logic or how options and field_type affect behavior. This is a clear gap.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('resolve') with a well-defined resource ('unpredicted form question') and source scope ('profile or saved answers'). It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing deterministic resolution and the 'never invent' constraint, which distinguishes it from save_form_answer or get_profile.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a deterministic answer is needed for an unpredicted form question. It also mentions the fallback ('otherwise ask_user') which gives context for handling unresolved cases, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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