Resolve a semantic role, expert, persona, and live skill route

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

The description contradicts the annotations by claiming 'this tool grants no execution authority' and mentions 'fuzzy candidates are never promoted automatically' – but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Since readOnlyHint already implies no execution or mutation, these statements are redundant and confusing. The description adds no new behavioral context (e.g., what happens if candidate not found, side effects, rate limits) and instead introduces misleading language about authority when annotations already cover safety. This is a contradiction as it misstates the tool's effect.

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, dense, 36-word sentence that is packed with unnecessary jargon like 'provider-neutral routing map' and 'semantic/source signal'. It is not front-loaded with the core action; instead, it leads with validation steps and constraints. This is over-specification without clarity, hurting scannability.

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 tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the tool's purpose and return values. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., ranked skill candidates), how it handles errors, or what 'resolve' means. The description is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke this complex tool.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema. However, some descriptions are in German (e.g., 'Maximale Anzahl gerankter Skill-Kandidaten') which may hinder comprehension. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies. The extra credit is for the description's mention of 'limit' and 'deployedOnly' indirectly via context, but overall it doesn't compensate for the lack of clarity.

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 is a convoluted definition that never states a clear action. It mentions 'semantic role/expert/persona' and 'routing map' but fails to say what the tool actually does or returns. It reads like a jargon-filled abstract and does not differentiate it from the many sibling tools like controlcenter_find_capability or controlcenter_resolve_profile.

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?

Implicit usage is suggested by the description of validating a caller-selected role and verifying endpoints, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Similarly, no alternatives are mentioned, and the distinction between this resolver and controlcenter_resolve_profile or controlcenter_list_skills is left to inference.

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