Resolve Minecraft Player

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description only adds that the output is normalized UUID form(s), without detailing formats, error behavior, or whether resolution may fail for unknown names.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though terse enough that more operational detail could have been added without bloat.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and 'normalized UUID forms' remains vague — it doesn't say which forms (dashed/undashed) or whether both are returned. The core contract (accept either identifier, return UUIDs) is conveyed but incompletely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both uuid and username with format hints. The description adds only that either identifier is acceptable and gets normalized, which is essentially restating the schema's purpose.

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 (resolve) and resource (Minecraft username or UUID) with an explicit outcome (normalized UUID forms). However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like hypixel_player, so an agent gets no routing signal from the description itself.

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 'for Hypixel tools' implies the usage context (a preprocessing step before other Hypixel queries), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no named alternative, and no prerequisites stated.

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