gateway_factory_project_resolve_by_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that it maps an issue to a runtime project config, but does not disclose any additional behavior such as queue fallback, error conditions, or what 'resolve' entails. It does not contradict annotations, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff and front-loaded action. It is well-structured, though very sparse; it could carry more useful information without losing conciseness.

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?

Given two parameters (one required, one optional with a default) and a 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It does not explain what issue_id should reference, what allow_queue_fallback controls, or how this tool relates to sibling factory tools. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for the missing parameter and usage context.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for issue_id or allow_queue_fallback. The parameter names offer limited self-evidence, but the tool description adds no meaning – especially the optional fallback boolean, which is left entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve one Tracker issue to a factory runtime project config.' This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like gateway_factory_project_get_runtime_config (which likely fetches config directly by project) and gateway_project_scope_resolve. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of the allow_queue_fallback parameter's role. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it should be chosen over sibling factory or project tools.

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