xr18_resolve_channel

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating the legacy name is retained and the result now contains the unified source identifier, which clarifies the return contract. However, it does not disclose behavior for unknown names, case sensitivity, name formats, or potential side effects—though this seems like a pure resolution tool, the lack of these details is a gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the compatibility note is placed second. Every clause adds information.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete, but it leaves operational details—valid name formats, error behavior, relation to the list tool—to be discovered. It is adequate as a minimal definition but does not fully equip an agent to call it correctly on the first try.

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 coverage is 0% and there is only one string parameter, so the description must explain what 'name' means. Saying 'by name' and listing channel kinds is a start, but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., 'ch01', 'AUX1', user-assigned labels) or whether numbers are accepted. An agent will still have to guess or probe valid values.

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 verb and resource: it resolves a channel by name and names the full set of channel types it covers (regular, AUX, FX, bus, LR, DCA). It also tells the result is the unified source identifier used by other tools, which helps distinguish this from the get/set/trigger siblings. A small deduction because 'resolve' and 'unified source identifier' remain somewhat abstract without seeing the output schema.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, but the phrase 'used by the other assistant tools' implies this is a lookup/helper tool. It does not say when to call this instead of xr18_list_channels or xr18_get, and no exclusions are mentioned. The intent is inferable but not spelled out.

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