resolve_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose whether the resolution is exact, case-insensitive, returns multiple matches, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The mention of 'stable talker' hints at a mapping concept but lacks detail.

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 a single sentence, extremely compact. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a practical suggestion, but the brevity leaves significant gaps in semantics and usage context.

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 tool with no annotations, 3 params, and 0% schema coverage, this description is insufficient. It lacks details on return behavior, ambiguity handling, and parameter options. The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description still fails to provide complete context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' is a display name and that 'type_filter' can be 'group', but it does not explain 'limit' or the meaning of other type_filter values. The coverage is partial and leaves key parameters ambiguous.

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 a specific action: resolving a display name to a stable talker. It distinguishes itself from the sibling read/send tools by focusing on name resolution, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'search'.

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 only usage hint is 'prefer type_filter=group when applicable', which is more about parameter selection than tool selection. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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