chatwoot_get_captain_resolution_flow

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the result is a funnel with 'steps to resolution', which is mild behavioral context, but it does not disclose rate limits, data scope, or edge-case behavior. The safety profile is covered by annotations, so a 3 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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence of purpose followed by clear Arg lines. There is no redundancy or filler, and every line adds necessary 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?

For a read-only, 3-parameter analytics tool with an output schema and schema-provided defaults, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It would be stronger with explicit distinction from resolution_trend/overview siblings, but nothing essential to making a basic call 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully explains assistant_id provenance via list_captain_assistants, range as an analysis period with accepted values, and output_format as a format choice. Only output_format is left largely tautological, so a small gap remains.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Captain assistant'), a specific verb ('Returns'), and a distinct concept ('conversation resolution funnel / steps to resolution'), which distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools like get_captain_resolution_trend and get_captain_metrics.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative routing. The only usage hint is how to obtain assistant_id via chatwoot_list_captain_assistants, which is parameter acquisition rather than usage guidance. It never says when to prefer this over resolution_trend, overview, or other Captain analytics tools.

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