match_chip_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, error behavior (e.g., unmapped alias), or whether it modifies anything. The single sentence lacks context beyond the basic operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. No filler or redundant information, earning a 5.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks guidance on when to use, return format, error cases, and parameter semantics. For a simple lookup tool, this is below the minimum viable bar, though the core purpose is clear.

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%, and the description only partially compensates. It implies that 'target' is the chip alias and 'backend' influences the resulting name, but it does not provide per-parameter details, accepted values, or format expectations. The description gives general semantics but not enough to fully understand the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'resolve' and clearly states the input (chip alias) and output (backend-specific target name). It distinguishes from siblings like get_target_info by focusing on alias resolution to a backend-specific name rather than general target information.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_target_info or configure_probe. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. Only the basic function is described.

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