uvcs_annotate

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by noting the read-only nature again and, more importantly, that binary files cannot be annotated, which prevents a class of invalid calls.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The core operation is stated first, followed by the binary-file caveat and the read-only status.

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 four-parameter read-only operation with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and key limitation. It could more explicitly route the agent away from sibling history/diff tools, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the definitions for filePath, maxLines, revision, and startLine already carry parameter meaning. The description does not add syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, such as how revision strings interact with blame, so it meets the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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: it shows who last changed each line of a text file and in which changeset, clearly identifying this as a blame operation. The parenthetical '(blame)' reinforces the exact concept, making it distinguishable from sibling tools like uvcs_file_history or uvcs_diff_file.

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 gives an important usage constraint: binary files cannot be annotated. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings such as uvcs_file_history or uvcs_diff_file, leaving the agent to infer that this is for per-line authorship rather than general history or diffs.

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