resolve_regions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Resolve' implies a read/compute operation, but the description does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., recipe must exist or be valid), failure behavior when regions cannot be resolved, or permission requirements.

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 eight-word sentence with a front-loaded verb and zero wasted words. For a simple one-parameter tool this is appropriately sized, though it leans toward under-specification rather than rich concision.

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 only one parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the burden on the description is low and return values need not be explained. However, the description still lacks usage guidance, behavioral disclosure, and a definition of 'semantic regions', leaving gaps that matter for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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 bare 'recipe_path' string parameter. The description does add the essential semantic link — recipe_path is the Run Recipe whose regions are resolved — which gives the parameter meaning. Format details (absolute/relative path, supported recipe types) are still absent, but the core meaning is conveyed.

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') and a specific resource ('semantic regions referenced by one Run Recipe'), which distinguishes it from the run-lifecycle siblings (validate_run, plan_run, start_run, etc.). However, 'semantic regions' is unexplained domain jargon, so an agent cannot fully know what is being resolved or what the operation produces.

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 siblings like plan_run, validate_run, or inspect_model. The phrase 'referenced by one Run Recipe' only hints at a scoping constraint, not a selection criterion or exclusion condition. An agent must guess when resolving regions is the appropriate step.

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