conduyt_resolve_names

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and only establishes that this is a lookup/conversion. It does not say what happens when a name fails to resolve (error, omission, partial result), whether matching is case-sensitive or fuzzy, or what the response shape looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the usage condition immediately after. Nothing redundant.

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 five-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, an agent still lacks the return format and failure-mode behavior needed to interpret results. The purpose and timing are covered, but the operational details are not.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description's list of entity types mostly mirrors the schema. It notably omits 'stages' and adds no resolution semantics such as ambiguity handling or whether stage names require a pipeline context.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resolve human-readable names to UUIDs') and enumerates the entity types covered. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_tags or list_pipelines, though it never names an alternative for getting the same IDs.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this before creating automations.' That is a clear context cue. It stops short of when-not-to-use or naming the sibling lookup tools (list_tags, list_pipelines, list_users) that also return IDs.

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