scout_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the state transition (moved to the Resolved section) and the non-obvious reversibility (auto-reopens as REGRESSIONS if re-found). It omits auth/permission needs and what the call returns, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: action first, then effect/side-effect, then usage trigger. No filler and the most important fact (the id source) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description adequately explains the resulting state and the regression side effect. It leaves minor gaps—what happens with an unknown id and why/when to pass the optional `session` parameter—but nothing that would cause a mis-call in normal single-session use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema supplies baseline meaning. The description adds provenance for the id ('shown when recorded and in the report'), which tells the agent where to obtain a valid value—more than the schema alone provides.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Mark a finding as resolved') plus the identifier needed to do it. It also names the observable outcome (moves to the report's green ✅ Resolved section), which distinguishes it from recording tools like scout_finding or scout_recheck_plan.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'when the user says a bug is fixed' or 'when re-testing shows the evidence no longer reproduces.' That is clear usage context, though it never states when not to use it or names alternative tools for the adjacent recording/re-testing workflows.

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