bsky_resolve_handle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion function but doesn't describe error conditions (e.g., invalid handles), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has an output schema (which likely describes the return value), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and two parameters (one unexplained), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses key contextual details like parameter explanations and behavioral traits.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'handle name' which maps to the 'handle' parameter, adding some semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain the 'acting_handle' parameter at all, leaving half of the parameters undocumented. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 the tool's purpose: converting a handle name to a DID. It uses specific verbs ('変換します' - converts) and identifies the resource (handle name to DID). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like bsky_get_profile or bsky_search_users that might also resolve handles indirectly, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), context for the 'acting_handle' parameter, or how it differs from sibling tools like bsky_get_profile that might return DID information. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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