resolve_poly_v_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only lookup, what 'resolve' returns, how invalid designations are handled, or what side effects (if any) occur.

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 concise sentence with no filler and the key resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a simple lookup tool, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.

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 is simple, but there is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of what 'resolve' produces or how it relates to sibling poly-V and V-belt tools. An agent cannot tell whether this returns dimensions, validates a designation, or generates a geometry.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'designation' parameter or its PH/PJ/PK/PL/PM enum. The schema itself fully documents the single parameter, which mitigates the gap, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the structured definition.

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 names a specific verb ('resolve'), a concrete resource ('ISO 9982:2021 Poly-V pulley groove profile'), and narrows scope to 'one' profile. It is distinguishable from V-belt siblings, though 'resolve' is somewhat vague and it does not explicitly differentiate from list_poly_v_profiles or preview_poly_v_groove.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_poly_v_profiles or preview_poly_v_groove. No conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided; usage is only implied by the resource name.

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