zero_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the matching priority (exact then fuzzy) but omits critical traits: whether it is read-only, what happens on no match, whether it returns multiple ids, or error behavior. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 very concise (single sentence) and front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words, though it could benefit from structuring into usage and behavior sections for clarity.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description should explain return value behavior (e.g., single vs. multiple ids, null on fail). It lacks this, leaving the agent uncertain about handling results.

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 0%, and the description adds minimal context: the single parameter 'name' is used for matching alias/title. It does not specify format, trimming, or case sensitivity. The description adds little beyond the schema field name.

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 tool returns an id matching an alias or title, with exact then fuzzy matching. It implies a specific resource (alias/title) and action (resolve to id), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'zero_search' or 'zero_read'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It describes the matching logic but does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or alternative tools for other lookup scenarios.

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