List Tracker resolutions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered elsewhere. The description adds domain context about what a resolution is and its org-wide scope, but no operational traits like ordering, paging, or whether custom resolutions are included. Adequate against the lower bar set by annotations, not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource scope in the first fragment, then the key disambiguation against statuses_list. Slightly awkward as a headline fragment plus two sentences, but every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 parameterless, read-only list operation with annotations covering safety and no output schema expected, the description supplies the domain meaning and the sibling disambiguation an agent needs. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it does not say how the list is ordered or whether it is paginated.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline 4 case; there is nothing to disambiguate. The description's note about resolution keys is contextual rather than parameter-level, which is appropriate here.

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?

States precisely what the tool returns ("Every issue resolution configured in the organisation") and defines the resource domain (close-out results such as fixed/duplicate/won't-fix). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling statuses_list, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Names the exact conditions for use ("to resolve or validate a resolution key when reading a closed issue or filtering") and names the alternative plus the reason it is wrong ("see statuses_list for workflow stages, not close-out reasons"). When/when-not guidance is fully explicit.

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