resolve

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

Describes both input modes (nodeId vs file:line:col), explains the mapStale flag indicating drift, and details what happens when map hasn't caught up (inMap:false with nearest container). Also explains tokenBudget behavior (truncation with note). No annotations present, so description carries full burden and succeeds.

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?

Sentence 2 is long but packs essential information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but still efficient with no wasted 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?

Completely covers both directions of resolution, explains stale detection and fallback behavior, and provides usage context relative to sibling tools. No output schema exists, but description gives enough to understand return behavior.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains the nodeId pattern, the dual use of file/line/col, and the tokenBudget behavior. At 60% schema coverage, description compensates fully.

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?

Clearly states tool bridges static map and live language server, resolving nodeId to file:line:col and vice versa. Distinguishes from sibling map_* and nav_* tools by positioning it as a bridge between them.

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?

Explicitly says 'call it whenever you switch layers', and provides specific guidance: 'Use before nav_* calls that need exact positions, and after nav_* results to re-enter the map graph.' This tells the agent exactly when and how to use it.

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