resolve_capability

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses behavioral traits: returns ranked providers, health status, costs, and fallback chains. However, omits safety-critical context given financial siblings (budget, spend) exist—does not clarify if this operation is read-only, commits funds, or has side effects.

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 sentences, zero waste. First sentence defines function and output characteristics; second sentence front-loads the mental model for usage. Every word earns its place.

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 complex resolution tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what gets returned conceptually (rankings, costs, health, fallbacks). Slight gap: doesn't hint at return structure (object vs array) or integration with 'routing' sibling.

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 has 100% coverage with example values ('email.send', 'payment.charge'). Description reinforces the parameter through the example question but does not add syntax, format constraints, or enum semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb 'Resolve' with clear resource 'capability'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_capability' (which runs the action) by emphasizing 'ranked providers with health-aware recommendations' and the decision frame 'what should I use?'.

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?

Provides implied usage context through the agent decision quote 'I need email.send — what should I use?', indicating it's for provider selection. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings like 'get_alternatives' or 'estimate_capability', or when to prefer 'execute_capability'.

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