resolve_vc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a dict or list depending on input, and raises ValueError for unknown vc_id. No side effects are mentioned, but for a read-like operation this is adequate.

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 a clear front-loaded first sentence. The parameter explanation is integrated without being overly verbose. It earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the dual behavior, error condition, and return types. It is complete enough for the agent to use correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant value. It explains the vc_id parameter's meaning, its default behavior, and the return type for each case, which is beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the dual functionality: resolve a VC by ID or list all issued credentials. The verb 'Resolve' is specific and the resource is 'Verifiable Credential'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_vc' by explicitly mentioning both modes.

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 explains when to use each mode based on the vc_id parameter: if omitted/empty, list all; if provided, resolve that specific VC. It does not compare with sibling tools, but the condition is clearly stated.

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