resolve_spring_size

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the output is 'generator-ready scenario params,' which hints at a pure transformation, but it discloses nothing about side effects, error behavior for an invalid catalog_id/entry_id, whether lookups are read-only, or how overrides interact with resolved values. The safety and side-effect profile is entirely undisclosed.

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 ten-word sentence with no filler, and the key constraint ('one spring catalog entry') plus the output purpose are front-loaded. It earns full credit for brevity, but the terseness comes at the cost of the elaboration needed for parameters and usage, so it stops short of a 5.

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 five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine the shape of overrides, the source of a valid catalog_id, the meaning of catalog_dir, or the structure of the returned 'generator-ready scenario params.' The tool is positioned among many spring workflow siblings, and this short description does not provide enough context to invoke it correctly on the first attempt.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence, and it does not. None of the five parameters (catalog_id, entry_id, overrides, catalog_dir, include_preview) are explained. The names are reasonably self-explanatory and mirror sibling naming conventions, but the description adds nothing about what overrides should contain, how catalog_dir is used, or what include_preview produces.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('one spring catalog entry'), and a concrete outcome ('generator-ready scenario params'). The word 'one' usefully distinguishes this from bulk operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like find_spring_sizes, preview_spring_from_size, or create_spring_from_size, leaving some ambiguity for an agent browsing the tool list.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., getting valid catalog_id from list_spring_size_catalogs), no indication of the workflow step this belongs to, and no exclusions. Among many spring-related siblings (recommend_spring_sizes, preview_spring_from_size, create_spring_from_size), the description leaves the agent to infer placement in the pipeline.

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