resolve

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether resolution is read-only, what happens on missing or ambiguous IDs, or whether any side effects occur. 'Without semantic guessing' is a weak behavioral hint but does not convey operational semantics like error handling or response structure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and directly addresses the core operation, though it is so terse that it sacrifices explanatory power.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: no usage context, no behavior guarantees, and minimal parameter semantics. An agent cannot confidently decide when to call it or what to expect beyond a vague 'resolve' action.

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 describes 'query' only as a string with zero coverage. The description clarifies that the query can be a family, declared contract id, or slice id, but does not explain expected formats, examples, or how the tool distinguishes among the three. This partial compensation is insufficient for a 0%-coverage parameter.

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 types ('family, declared contract id, or slice id'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, register, or scan. The phrase 'without semantic guessing' adds a hint of exact matching, but does not name alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like read_context, status, or graph. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the mnemonic verb alone.

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