Resolve ONES Bug

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only that the ref can take three forms, which usefully resolves the 'resolve = read' ambiguity but is thin for behavioral disclosure. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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?

Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the routing hint second. No redundant restatement of the title or name, though the phrasing is terse enough that a little more specificity could fit without bloat.

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-value shape need not be described. Purpose, accepted input forms, and sibling routing are all present, leaving the definition complete enough to invoke correctly for a one-parameter read tool.

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 single 'ref' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden — and it does, stating that ref may be a bug number, a task id, or a task URL. This meaningfully extends the bare minLength:1 string schema, though it omits format examples or precedence rules.

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?

States a specific verb-plus-resource ('Resolve an ONES bug') and enumerates the accepted reference forms (number, task id, task URL). The verb 'resolve' is ambiguous (lookup vs. fix), but the 'by number, task id, or task URL' phrasing steers the reader toward reference resolution. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many get_*_by_ref siblings.

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 second sentence ('Prefer *_by_ref tools for normal workflow reads') gives a routing hint toward the sibling family. However, it never states the converse condition — i.e., exactly when resolve_bug IS the right choice (presumably when you only hold a raw number/URL) — so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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