skylight_resolve_member

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

readOnlyHint already marks this as safe, and the description adds the two possible response shapes: matched with members and unmatched with members plus a note. That is genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation, though it does not cover edge cases like multiple/partial matches or error 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence efficiently documents both return shapes. No fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 low-complexity lookup tool, the return behavior is specified, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, the unexplained frameId parameter and the absence of matching semantics (e.g., exact vs partial, case sensitivity) leave an agent with questions when invoking the 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 only 50%; the name parameter is already well-described in the schema, and the description adds little beyond restating its role. The optional frameId parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess whether frame scoping is required or how it affects matching.

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 states a precise action ('resolve'), a clear resource ('family-member name'), and the outcome ('category id') used by chores/rewards. It reads as a distinct lookup utility rather than a generic CRUD operation, and no sibling tool has this resolution role.

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 phrase 'used by chores/rewards' gives an agent clear context for when this resolver is the right call, and the match/no-match behavior further implies a pre-step before creating chores/rewards. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of 5.

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