resolve_names

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

No annotations are provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions concurrent lookups for performance, but does not state that the operation is read-only, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid IDs), or what happens if both parameters are null. Some behavioral context is given, but gaps remain.

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 concise sentences: first states primary purpose, second adds details on input formats and concurrency. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, mapping output), and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (input types, concurrent execution). No critical context is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive field names and example values. The description restates the purpose of the parameters without adding significant new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'resolve' and resource 'user and channel IDs to display names'. It also highlights that it does so in a single call, distinguishing it from per-ID lookups among siblings like users_info or conversations_info.

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?

Implied usage for batch resolution of IDs, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., users_info for a single user) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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