resolve_entities

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses matching semantics ('case-insensitive substrings', 'exact=true'), the return shape ('summaries (resource_id, name, path, components)'), and error behavior ('empty result is successful, empty list (not an error)'. This is rich behavioral context that an agent needs for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose/value, matching default, return shape, and anti-guidance. It's front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, error semantics, and routing to an alternative. Nothing critical for an agent to invoke this correctly 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?

The schema already covers both parameters at 100% description coverage. The description addds meaningful behavior: it explains the default case-insensitive substring matching and explicitly connects exact=true to full-name matching. While somewhat redundant with the schema, it adds the default-behavior context that the schema only implies.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Resolve entities by name into their resource_ids and hierarchy paths'. It clearly states what is produced and why, and the final sentence explicitly differentiates from list_entities. The agent can confidently tell this tool apart from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives a concrete use case ('drive follow-up calls without shuttling UUIDs') and an explicit 'When NOT to use' with the correct alternative (list_entities). It also explains when to set the exact parameter. Both positive and negative guidance are present.

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