scout_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it by disclosing behavioral consequences: resolved findings move to the green Resolved section and reopen automatically as REGRESSIONS if re-found later. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not address potential side effects like irreversibility or permissions.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then explains behavior and usage conditions. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage triggers, and behavioral outcomes, which is sufficient for a simple action tool with no output schema and no required parameters. It does not explicitly explain the return value, but given the tool's simplicity and the strong schema coverage, the remaining gap is minor.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minor value by hinting where to find the id ('shown when recorded and in the report'), but it does not elaborate on parameter formats beyond the schema, hence a baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Mark a finding as resolved') and clearly identifies the target (by id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the outcome (moving to the Resolved section and auto-reopening as REGRESSIONS), which is unique to this tool.

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 explicitly states when to use it: when the user says a bug is fixed, or when re-testing shows the evidence no longer reproduces. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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