resolve_names

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It usefully notes that lookups run concurrently, but omits error handling (e.g., invalid IDs) or any limitations like maximum count. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, without any redundant or vague phrasing. Every sentence adds necessary 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 that an output schema exists (which likely documents the return mapping structure) and the task is straightforward bulk lookup, the description covers the essentials. Missing error-handling details slightly lower completeness, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value: it explains the parameters are lists of user/channel IDs with examples, and that the return is a mapping. It lacks some details like optionality and exact return structure, but still aids understanding.

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 it resolves user and channel IDs to display names in a single call, with specific ID format examples. It distinguishes itself from individual lookup tools by emphasizing the bulk, concurrent nature.

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?

It says 'in a single call' and mentions concurrent lookups, implying efficiency for multiple IDs. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., for a single ID, prefer users_info or conversations_info) and does not mention alternatives.

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