resolve_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden, and it does so well. It discloses the critical behavior of returning all matches rather than silently selecting one, and instructs the caller to disambiguate with the path field before continuing. It does not cover edge cases like zero matches or response format, but the disclosed behavior is the most important aspect for safe use.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second states a critical non-obvious behavior, and the third gives actionable disambiguation guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 lookup tool with three params and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational guidance: what it returns, that it returns multiple matches, and how to handle disambiguation. It could be more complete by describing the no-match case or the exact response shape, but given the tool's simplicity and the 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema already documents all three parameters and the enum values. The description adds some context by mentioning the 'path' field in results, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on the semantics of the 'scope' parameter beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('entity name') with a clear outcome: stable ID(s). It further distinguishes itself from the sibling CRUD tools by emphasizing it returns ALL matches and never silently picks one, making its role as a lookup/disambiguation tool unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have an entity name and need its stable ID, especially before a write operation. It also gives explicit guidance on what to do when multiple candidates are returned. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_task/get_project, but the instruction to disambiguate before writes provides solid practical context.

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