get_issue_resolutions_collection

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description is not the source of that information. It adds a semantic definition of issue resolutions but says nothing about pagination behavior, defaults, or what a 'configured' set implies, so it is only moderately additive.

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 sentences where the first two ('Get project issue resolutions' and 'Retrieve all issue resolutions configured for a project') restate the same fact, creating redundancy. The third sentence is the only genuinely additive content, so the description is not tightly 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?

For a read-only, annotated list tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits pagination semantics for the query object. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete, especially given the nested path structure.

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 reported at 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the nested path.projectId and the query page/limit parameters. It mentions only that the tool is project-scoped and provides no guidance on pagination, page size limits, or the projectId requirement, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Get/Retrieve') and resource ('issue resolutions') scoped to a project, and adds a definition of what an issue resolution is. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from structurally identical siblings like get_issue_categories_collection or get_issue_statuses_collection, but the resource 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this fetches configured issue resolutions for a project. There is no statement of when to prefer it, no prerequisites, and no mention of related sibling collections (statuses, priorities, categories) that an agent might confuse it with.

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