Resolve Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it tells the agent this establishes what other tools act on by default, which is critical for sequencing calls. It says nothing about cost/latency, but for a zero-arg local probe that is minor.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned information and followed by the calling rule. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described in prose, and the description still summarizes them at a glance. Zero parameters, safe annotations, and a clear call policy leave no gap an agent must guess at.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description adds the relevant nuance that the returned values act as implicit defaults for the other tools.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces (connection state, Resolve version/edition/channel, current project, timeline and page) and clarifies it is a reachability/context probe rather than a data reader. That is enough to separate it from data-oriented siblings like project_read or timeline_read, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

'Call it first, and again after an error' gives a concrete, actionable invocation rule that an agent can apply without inference. It lacks any when-not guidance or explicit pointer to a sibling (e.g. job_status for job-level state), so it falls short of a full 5.

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