resolve-library-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it performs network calls, may fail for unknown libraries, or returns null/throws errors. The description is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about failure modes.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and output. No fluff or redundant 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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks important context: error handling for unknown libraries, whether the ID is required for get-library-docs, and any input format nuances. Given the sibling tool exists, more guidance on the workflow would improve completeness.

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 covers the parameter fully, but the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema says; it just says 'general library name' which slightly clarifies that the input is a general name, not a specific ID. With 100% coverage, a score of 3 is baseline, but the added context is marginal; the description does not explain what format the library name should be (e.g., exact case, version suffix), so it drops to 2.

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 resolves a general library name into a Context7-compatible library ID, specifying the verb (resolve), resource (library name), and output (ID). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get-library-docs', though the different output type (ID vs docs) implies a distinction.

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 implies this tool is used when you need the internal ID before fetching docs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus get-library-docs. It could be clearer by saying 'Use this before get-library-docs to obtain the required ID.'

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