rad_address_to_line

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral trait — the lookup happens against the *currently selected* process, not an arbitrary one — but is silent on what happens when no process is selected or when the address doesn't map to any line.

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?

One tight sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though the same sentence count could have carried the missing session/context prerequisites.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What's missing is the session/context prerequisite and the meaning of session_id — meaningful gaps for a two-required-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly doesn't. It implies 'address' is a virtual address, but 'session_id' is never mentioned and its relationship to the 'selected process' is left entirely to inference.

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?

Specific verb ('resolve') plus a precise resource ('virtual address to source lines') with the scope ('selected process') stated. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like rad_get_stack or rad_evaluate, though the description stops short of contrasting them explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over rad_get_stack or rad_evaluate, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. that a session must be attached and a context selected). 'In the selected process' hints at a precondition but never names it as one.

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