resolve_component_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it explicitly states the tool 'Never guesses from the tag name' and returns an 'unknown' result rather than inventing a package. That failure-mode disclosure is exactly what an agent needs; it only lacks detail on the exact shape of the unknown return.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an illustrative example and the failure contract. No filler, though the example sentence is close to restating the schema's own example values.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the sub-component resolution rule, and the unknown fallback. It stops just short of describing the exact returned value in the unknown case, which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics beyond the schema: the example pair now-card / now-card-header -> @servicenow/now-card shows that sub-component tags collapse to a base package, which is non-obvious from the parameter definition alone.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Returns the exact npm package that a ServiceNow HDS component tag belongs to.' The tag-to-package mapping is distinct from sibling tools like get_component_api or get_component_scaffold, so an agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 makes the triggering scenario clear (you have a component tag and need its npm package) and illustrates it with concrete inputs. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use this one, but the context is unambiguous for a single-purpose lookup.

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