Get Agent Id by Name

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the title, such as behavior when the name is not found, case sensitivity, or whether it returns the first match. Since it merely restates the tool's purpose without disclosing edge-case behavior, it scores low.

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 sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, lacking any additional structure or context that would justify its existence. It is adequate but minimal.

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 simple lookup tool with good annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, no output schema exists, and the description does not specify the return value type, error behavior, or uniqueness guarantees. Gaps remain, making this only minimally viable.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('Agent name'). The tool description does not add extra meaning or context for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Resolve an agent id by its name' clearly states the verb (resolve), the resource (agent id), and the scope (by name). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like lyzr_get_agent (which fetches details by id) and lyzr_list_agents (which lists all agents), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage (when you need the ID from a name) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention that other agent APIs might require this ID. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so it earns a mid-range score.

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