resolve_anime_title

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

Because no annotations are present, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It at least discloses the core decision behavior and the fact that it resolves to MAL candidates rather than mutating data. However, it does not mention whether it performs an external network call, requires credentials, or is read-only, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 words and the primary purpose is front-loaded. It is compact and readable, though its brevity leaves room for omission of important contextual detail, which is reflected elsewhere.

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 six parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient on its own for an agent to confidently adapt calls. The output schema exists, but the meaning of threshold and filtering parameters, how the decision is derived, and how this differs from resolve_and_add_anime are missing. It covers the broad job but not enough of the operational details.

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 by explaining parameters, but it does not. The word 'title' maps to the title parameter, but limit, fields, source, min_score, and score_gap are all unexplained, leaving most of the six parameters ambiguous.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('anime title'), a target ('MAL candidates'), and a concrete decision output ('match/ambiguous/no_match'). It clearly differs from siblings like resolve_and_add_anime, which implies adding after resolution, and search_tvdb, which targets a different database.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not compare itself to resolve_and_add_anime or any other sibling, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone whether to call this tool or a related one for a given workflow.

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