Resolve Run:AI Names

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses supported types and batch resolution capability, but doesn't mention error behavior, case sensitivity, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence efficiently lists supported types and batch capability. Zero wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers the main operation, supported types, and batch capability. Since there's no output schema, it doesn't detail return format, but the phrase 'ID로 변환' implies the output. It's nearly complete, though minimal.

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 is fully self-descriptive (100% coverage) with the 'resolve' array and entity type enum. The description adds context that multiple entities can be resolved at once, but this is already implied by the array type. No additional parameter semantics beyond schema.

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 converts Run:AI entity names to IDs, with a specific verb ('변환합니다') and resource ('Run:AI 엔티티 이름'). It also lists supported entity types, distinguishing it from the generic sibling tools like call_runai_api.

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 explains the context: 'API는 ID를 요구하지만 사용자는 이름만 아는 경우가 대부분입니다' (the API requires IDs but users usually only know names), implying when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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