skylight_resolve_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint (safe read against external data). The description goes beyond that by documenting the two return shapes for matched vs unmatched cases, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, though it says nothing about required auth or rate 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, purpose front-loaded, then return behavior. No filler. Slightly dense in the second sentence but every clause earns its place by describing distinct branches.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden and covers both match and no-match branches. The only gap is the unexplained frameId parameter, which an agent might need given the openWorldHint.

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 50%: 'name' is documented in-schema and the description echoes its resolve-a-name purpose, but 'frameId' is undocumented in both the schema and the description. With half the parameters undocumented, the description fails to compensate but does not mislead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a family-member name to its category id'. The parenthetical '(used by chores/rewards)' pins the scope, making it distinguishable from listing tools like skylight_list_frame_members. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling alternative, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 implicit context ('used by chores/rewards') hints at when this is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. An agent can infer it's a lookup helper, but nothing routes it decisively against siblings.

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