resolve_finding

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions gating but does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. Return keys are listed but behavioral context is minimal.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for gating, and a bullet for return structure. No unnecessary words.

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?

Output schema covers return values, but the description lacks context on state transitions, usage boundaries vs. siblings, and behavioral details. Adequate for a simple tool but not comprehensive.

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 of the parameters (finding_id, evidence_refs). It adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool marks a finding as resolved, referencing a specific condition (resolution_condition met) and notes it is gated like confirm_finding. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like dismiss_finding, which also changes status.

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 description implies usage when resolution_condition is met and references confirm_finding for gating, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or exclude cases.

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