rozetka_resolve_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is network-free, implying local/read-only and fast behavior, but does not describe error handling, malformed-URL behavior, or the return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the verb, accepted URL forms, and the key no-network constraint. There is 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?

Tool complexity is low, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what resolving yields, such as an ID, type, or object. It adequately covers accepted inputs and local behavior, but leaves return value and failure behavior for the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'url' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by naming accepted path patterns (/p<ID>/ and /c<ID>/) for product and category URLs, adding meaningful semantics beyond a bare string, though it lacks full-URL examples and invalid-input details.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resources ('product URL' or 'category URL') with path patterns. It implies local parsing via 'without a network request', which distinguishes it from network-fetching siblings, but it does not name alternatives or state the resolved output.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you have a Rozetka product or category URL and want to resolve it locally, and 'without a network request' signals preferring this over fetching tools when only parsing is needed. No explicit when-not-use guidance or named alternatives are provided.

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