resolve_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Check' implies a read-only operation and the listed status items clarify what is inspected, but it does not disclose failure behavior, connection-state implications, or whether any state is touched. It is adequate but 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?

The description is one tight sentence, with the core action and what is checked front-loaded, followed by the vital ordering instruction. Every element earns its place and no filler is present.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description supplies the necessary purpose and sequence. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers them, and nothing required to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to annotate beyond the schema. Schema coverage is complete by construction, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 ('Check') and identifies a clear resource: the bridge connection state, plus Resolve version, open project, and current timeline. It clearly conveys this is a status/entry-point tool, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state how it differs from bridge_capabilities or project_info, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 instruction 'Always call this first' gives an explicit, unambiguous when-to-use rule and establishes sequencing relative to other tools. It does not, however, provide exclusions or name alternatives for cases where a more specific status tool would be preferred.

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