resolve_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'resolve' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or if it has side effects like modifying data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential mutation implications.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the complexity of tag resolution (which could involve lookups, normalization, or mutations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'canonical form' entails or what the return values might be, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'tag' documented as 'Tag to resolve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Resolve a tag to its canonical form' states a clear verb ('resolve') and resource ('tag'), but it's vague about what 'resolve' and 'canonical form' mean in this context. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_aliases_for_tag' or 'normalize_observations', which might involve similar tag processing.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_aliases_for_tag', 'normalize_observations', and 'merge_tags' that could relate to tag handling, the description lacks any context or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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