resolve-topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool performs a lookup, returns topic IDs, and enumerates the known topic surface. It does not describe no-match behavior, but for a simple query-to-ID resolver this is a minor gap rather than a major omission.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and result, then provides a compact but useful enumeration of supported topics. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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?

Given one simple string parameter, no output schema, and a single sibling tool, the description covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, the accepted topic space, and how the result connects to query-config-docs. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by listing valid topic names and explaining that the query resolves into an ID for downstream use, which meaningfully clarifies what to pass in the 'query' parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), names the resource ('OpenClaw documentation topics'), and states the concrete output ('topic IDs to use with query-config-docs'). This clearly separates resolve-topic from its sibling: it produces IDs, while the sibling presumably consumes them.

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 makes the workflow clear: use this tool to get topic IDs, then pass them to query-config-docs. It does not explicitly list exclusion criteria (e.g., 'do not use if you already have a topic ID'), but the stated purpose gives an agent enough context to choose it appropriately.

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