resolve_url

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds behavioral context by explaining the default slot behavior and the conditional requirement that project and slot must be passed together. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful operational detail beyond them.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core output and scope before explaining the alternate lookup mode. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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 read-only annotation, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior well. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly linking to sibling tools or clarifying when the port-focused counterpart should be used, but nothing critical is missing.

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 already covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that project and slot are mutually dependent for cross-project lookups, which is not fully explicit in the schema structure.

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 that the tool returns the full URL of one service, with the current-slot scope and an alternate-project lookup mode. It lacks an explicit verb like 'resolve' or 'get', and does not directly name sibling tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives useful context: by default it uses the current slot, and passing both project and slot is required to look up another project. However, it does not mention alternatives such as resolve_port or state when resolve_url should be avoided.

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