Get Resolutions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope ('all resolutions') and the context ('when closing issues') but does not disclose additional behaviors like ordering, filtering, or response format. This is acceptable for a simple list retrieval with annotations present.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool has no parameters and the output schema exists, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. The context 'when closing issues' and the scope 'all resolutions' provide complete guidance for this low-complexity read operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input space (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, as none exist.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving all resolutions in Yandex Tracker used when closing issues. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resolutions'), and the context 'when closing issues' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_statuses or get_issue_types.

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 the intended use case ('when closing issues'), which helps the agent select it for issue closure scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the context is reasonably clear among the many sibling getter tools.

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