get_resolutions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds the 'available for closing' filter semantics, which is useful, but says nothing about whether results are context/queue-dependent or how they are ordered. 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?

A single short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and no filler; it is appropriately sized for a parameterless lookup. It is terse to the point of omitting any routing or usage guidance, which slightly limits its value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with no parameters the description has little else to cover. Still, in a sibling set crowded with get_* metadata tools, it does not help the agent choose this one over list_transitions or get_statuses.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The 100% schema coverage and empty property set mean nothing is missing on this axis.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Получить доступные резолюции') and adds scope ('для закрытия задач'), so the agent knows this returns the set of resolutions valid for closing an issue. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from metadata siblings like get_statuses, get_priorities, or get_issue_types.

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 'для закрытия задач' implies the usage context (fetching resolutions when closing an issue), which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use clause, no mention of pairing with execute_transition, and no exclusions relative to the other lookup tools.

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