Znajdz identyfikatory zasobu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a lookup/transformation operation and enumerates the output shape, but it does not disclose behavior for unresolved inputs or partial matches.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the operation and output; the second gives the practical use case. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly enumerates the returned identifier set {organization, server, site}, which is essential. Combined with the schema's parameter descriptions and the safety annotations, this is nearly complete; only error/edge-case behavior is missing.

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%, with both 'query' and 'org' already explained in the schema. The description mostly restates the same idea (domain or name to identifiers), adding no deeper parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Zamienia' – converts) and a clear resource: it turns a domain or name into a complete set of identifiers {organization, server, site}. It also references forge_call as the downstream consumer, which helps distinguish this resolver from the large sibling list.

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 explicitly says this tool is useful when you want to use forge_call, which requires raw identifiers. That gives clear context for when to select it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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