resolve_uid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. However, it only states the lookup purpose and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (e.g., the object type, a summary, full data), or any potential side effects. It is minimally informative.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and uses no filler words. However, its brevity contributes to its lack of depth, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description does not clarify what the resolved information will contain or how the parameters interact. The 'handle' parameter is unexplained, and there is no indication of the return format or any error conditions. Given that the tool requires two parameters, this is a noticeable gap.

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 description coverage is 0% — the description does not explain either of the two parameters (uid and handle). While 'uid' likely corresponds to the GUID mentioned, the description does not explicitly map it, and the 'handle' parameter is entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: resolving what kind of object a GUID represents (device, zone, plan, substrate, driver). The verb 'resolve' is implied by the name, and the resource (GUID) is explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_device or get_object by focusing on identifying the type rather than fetching details.

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 notes the purpose ('what object is hidden behind the GUID') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_object or get_device. It does not mention any exclusions or specific conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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