commons_resolutions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool reads resolution IDs and scopes them to the local world, but it does not describe return format, error behavior, or any limitations. The second sentence focuses on future resolution proposals rather than clarifying the behavior of this read 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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds some contextual information about future proposals, but it is not essential to invoking this tool and slightly dilutes the focus.

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?

For a simple parameterless read tool, the description is minimally viable, naming the resource and action. However, it lacks any phrase about what the returned resolution IDs look like and does not provide enough guidance to confidently distinguish this from sibling read-style tools.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for a parameterless tool is appropriate here.

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 clear verb and resource, 'Read resolution IDs in the local world,' so an agent can tell it is a read operation targeting resolution identifiers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like commons_get or commons_query, which also sound like read operations.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as commons_get, commons_query, or commons_world. The sentence about evidence and constitution rules suggests a connection to future proposals but does not explain when an agent should choose this tool.

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