stats_resolution_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the scope of 'tickets résolus ou clos' but does not clarify the measurement basis (e.g., from creation to resolution), units (days, hours), or whether a time window applies. This is a read-only stat tool, but the description could be more explicit about the exact definition.

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, front-loaded sentence in French with no waste. It conveys the essential purpose and scope efficiently.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the core purpose and scope. It could add detail about the calculation method or units, but the output schema likely covers return values, making it reasonably complete.

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 is empty, so there is no parameter information to add. Following the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description adequately suffices.

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 returns the average resolution time for resolved or closed tickets. It uses a specific verb ('retourne') and specifies the resource and scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling stats tools like stats_by_priority or stats_overdue.

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 for retrieving average resolution time of resolved/closed tickets but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. It lacks a direct comparison to sibling stats tools.

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