gateway_resolve

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only states that resolution happens 'through the StealthMark API'. It does not say whether this is a read-only network fetch, whether authentication or an API key is required, how unknown or unreachable domains are handled, or whether results are cached.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key object of the operation appears early. It is efficient, though slightly dense with unexplained terminology ('machine-readable agent manifest').

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what a resolved manifest contains and what an agent should do with it; it only hints at 'exposed actions'. For a single-parameter discovery tool this is workable but leaves the agent guessing at the response shape and failure modes.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'domain' with an example. The description only reinforces that the target is a website domain; it adds no format, normalization, or subdomain handling details beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') plus a concrete resource ('a website's machine-readable agent manifest and its exposed actions'), which distinguishes it from gateway_invoke and kya_status by implying discovery rather than execution or status lookup. The remaining ambiguity is only in the jargon 'agent manifest', which an agent may not know the shape of.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to gateway_invoke as the follow-up step for actually calling the discovered actions. Sequencing (resolve first, then invoke) is only inferable from the sibling names, which the definition itself does not leverage.

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