erc8004__resolve_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It fails to disclose what happens if no parameters are provided, whether both resolution methods can be used simultaneously, error handling for missing registrations, or any authentication/rate-limiting requirements.

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 with a prefix that is somewhat redundant (tool name already includes 'erc8004'). It is front-loaded but not overly verbose. Minor waste could be trimmed.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters (all optional) and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value, side effects, or behavior when no parameters are provided. It is incomplete for a resolution tool that likely returns registration details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning to the parameters. It mentions 'bridge DID' and '(chain_id, token_id)' but does not explain their formats, constraints, or defaults. The parameter names are self-evident but no additional semantic value is provided.

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 verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'ERC-8004 registration', and specifies two distinct methods (by bridge DID or by chain_id/token_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_registrations or import_registration.

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 implies the tool is used to resolve an already imported registration but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_registrations or verify_attestation. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use is provided.

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