resolve_names

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool reports match types and warns that unresolved names 'looks like a player who scored zero,' which is valuable behavioral insight beyond basic functionality.

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 three sentences and front-loads the main purpose. The additional context about failure modes is relevant and earns its place, though the third sentence could be trimmed without losing essential meaning.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and a critical behavioral caveat. The lack of parameter format detail is a gap, but the overall context is sufficient for a competent agent.

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 lists 'names_csv' with zero description coverage. The description mentions 'names' and 'each name' but does not explain the CSV format, delimiters, or expected structure, leaving a significant gap for a parameter that is the sole input.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check how names resolve against the board.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by positioning it as 'useful before trusting a paste sync,' which implies it is a pre-validation step.

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 'useful before trusting a paste sync,' giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the use case is well defined.

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