Resolve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explaining the outcome categories (same place, renamed with identical body, gone with nearest names) and the structure of the result. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only or describe edge-case handling, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core definition appears first, followed by concrete invocation examples. No sentence is wasted, though the density of the first sentence might make it slightly harder to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main operation and gives usable syntax examples. It is incomplete regarding the repo parameter, output_format values, and exact return shape, which an agent would need for robust invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for location (path:line or path::name), ref_from (--from REF), and ref_to (--to REF). However, it does not explain repo or output_format at all, leaving two of the five parameters with only their names and defaults as guidance.

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 identifies the verb ('Translate') and resource (path:line or path::name across refs), and specifies the exact operation: locating the enclosing structure at --from and its counterpart at --to. This distinguishes it from the sibling scanning/searching tools, which focus on listing or diffing content rather than ref-to-ref translation.

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?

Usage is implied through concrete shell examples showing both the path:line and path::name forms. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings like find_divergence or surface, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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