resolve_artifact_bridge

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

Annotations include openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds useful behavioral detail: 'Defaults to cache-only lookup and never downloads unless local_files_only=false.' It also discloses the resolution record fields, helping the agent understand what the tool returns. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavior, then routing guidance and return fields. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repeated schema information.

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?

Given a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, when to use it, default behavior, and the exact return record fields. It lacks explicit semantics for the required path parameters and error conditions, but those are already captured under parameter semantics; overall it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for bare parameter names. It only addresses local_files_only indirectly via the download behavior; repo_id, filename, and revision are not semantically explained. The agent must infer what these path components mean, which is a significant gap at zero 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a Hugging Face artifact path through the Algenta compatibility-ring artifact bridge.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling list_models by saying 'Use this only for Hugging Face artifact paths; use list_models for the model catalog.' The agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('only for Hugging Face artifact paths') and names the alternative ('use list_models for the model catalog'). It also communicates the default cache-only behavior and the condition for downloading, giving clear invocation context.

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