cigchat_resolve

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

No annotations exist, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It adds useful context about opaque ids ('f123t456') and the ability to disambiguate, but it does not specify the output structure, behavior on no matches, or explicitly confirm that it is read-only. The cap of 100 is only in the schema, not in the description.

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 purposeful: first states the core function, second explains why opaque ids matter, third gives usage direction. No redundant filler or repetition of schema content.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and domain context. It lacks explicit return-format details, but the schema's 'capped at 100' note and the description's mention of 'list what is available' collectively give an agent enough to act. The 'show the human' phrase implies a list of options, which is helpful.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little param-specific detail beyond the schema. It does reinforce the semantics of 'name' as optional ('list what is available') and explains the need to resolve names to ids, but this is context rather than new parameter syntax.

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 a specific verb phrase ('Look up the namespace id') and names the resource types (tag, flow, field, segment, agent). It also clarifies the tool's broader capability ('or list what is available'), distinguishing it from sibling list tools by framing it as a resolver for opaque ids.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when you want to show the human the available options, or to disambiguate when a name matched more than one thing.' It also provides a when-not by noting 'Most tools accept a plain name and resolve it for you.' It stops short of naming specific sibling tools like cigchat_list_tags, but the guidance is clear.

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