close_resolved_issues

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the dry-run default but omits crucial behavioral traits such as destructiveness (closing issues), irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects like notifications. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and criteria; the second adds the key behavioral default. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not detailed), the description offers minimal context. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, behavior when dry_run is false, or the relationship between parameters. Incomplete for safe usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'label' and 'older_than_days' parameters and the 'dry_run' default, but does not clarify 'owner', 'repo' (though partly inferred from context), or 'comment' (default given but not explained). Partial addition of meaning.

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 the tool's action (bulk-close issues) and the specific criteria (a specific label, older than N days). It also mentions the default dry-run mode, distinguishing it from sibling tools like stale_issue_report or triage_issues.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_label_issues or stale_issue_report. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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