resolve_bench

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the Kolhapur circuit rule and the list of forum_family values, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or other operational details. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the special rule appended. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to scan, though the format is a bit unstructured (line breaks used for emphasis).

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 should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a bench identifier, name, or location). It does not describe the result for typical districts or handle edge cases beyond Kolhapur. The special rule is helpful, but the overall behavior and return value are underspecified for an agent to rely on.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains forum_family with allowed values, which adds meaning, but it does not clarify the district parameter (format, examples, or constraints) nor what the output will be. This is a significant gap for a 0% coverage tool.

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 states a specific action ('Map a Maharashtra district to the correct Bombay bench, MAT bench or DRT') with a clear resource and target. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_forums or get_forum_config by its focus on resolving a bench from a district, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides a specific rule for Kolhapur-circuit districts, indicating when a special check is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., when to use resolve_bench instead of list_forums), leaving the selection largely implied by the purpose.

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