resolve_test_request

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

The description adds the key behavioral constraint that no test run is dispatched, which is useful beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. Yet it does not describe how the resolution is performed or whether any internal state is touched, leaving room for ambiguity. Given the annotation already indicates a read-only operation, the description adds moderate value but not rich behavioral detail.

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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint without extraneous words. It is perfectly concise and 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?

The tool is simple (0 params, readOnlyHint) and the description covers the core purpose, but it does not indicate what the tool returns or elaborates on what 'resolving a lost start ACK' entails. Without an output schema, the description should ideally clarify the outcome or return value to fully inform an agent's decision to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so the description is not required to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not introduce any conflicting parameter information.

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 'Resolve' with a clear resource ('lost start ACK') and explicitly states the negative scope ('without dispatching another test run'), which distinguishes it from test-running siblings. However, 'start ACK' is domain-specific jargon that may not be fully self-explanatory to an agent without additional context.

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 phrase 'without dispatching another test run' implies this tool is the alternative to re-running tests when an ACK is lost, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or directly name alternative tools (e.g., run_playtest or run_tests).

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