get_resolutions

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is to add context. It adds only the word 'all', with no mention of pagination, result ordering, caching, or whether archived/default resolutions are included, so it contributes essentially nothing beyond the purpose statement.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects a lack of content rather than disciplined editing.

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-param read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema present, it leaves the return shape (fields per resolution, ordering, completeness) entirely unspecified.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify, and the schema (empty object) matches the 'all, unfiltered' claim.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List all issue resolutions'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It is clear but generic: it does not distinguish this from the parallel lookups in the sibling set (get_statuses, get_priorities, get_issue_types), which share the same shape.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. 'List all' weakly implies usage when resolution options are needed, but nothing in the text tells the agent when this call is appropriate versus create_resolution/update_resolution or the other enum-style lookups.

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