resolve_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that the tool fuzzy-matches names, suggests placement, checks deploy_name availability, and returns structured options for user confirmation. This implies a read-only, pre-flight role and helps the agent avoid using it as a deploy/register action.

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 sentences, all front-loaded with the most critical instruction ('CALL THIS BEFORE...'). Every sentence adds value: when to use, what it does, and what it returns. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, usage, key behaviors, and the nature of the return value ('structured options'). It lacks explicit detail about return fields or edge cases, but the description is sufficient for the tool's straightforward pre-deployment resolution role.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters at 100% coverage, including notes that project_name and collection_name are fuzzy matched and that deploy_name is checked for availability. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with an explicit directive: 'CALL THIS BEFORE deploying or registering a prototype when the user hasn't provided exact IDs.' It clearly identifies the tool's role as a pre-deployment resolver that fuzzy-matches names, checks availability, and returns options. This distinguishes it from siblings like deploy_prototype and register_prototype.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user hasn't provided exact IDs' and 'BEFORE deploying or registering'), giving clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the 'before' phrasing implies the downstream deployment/registration tools are the alternatives.

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