Resolve

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core computation and possible outcomes (same place, renamed with identical body, or gone with nearest names), which is genuinely useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not describe the response/output format, and does not discuss error cases, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool without annotation safety hints.

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 dense but efficient: it defines the operation, the semantic outcomes, the use cases, and a concrete shell invocation, all in a few sentences. The command example is front-loaded with the core syntax and includes a fallback invocation, making every sentence earn its place without padding.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics of location, ref_from, and ref_to, and handles the likely main use cases. But it omits repo and output_format entirely, and does not explain what the returned output looks like or what 'tree' format means. An agent could make the most common call correctly, but not all supported calls confidently.

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 explains the location input format ('path:line' or 'path::name') and illustrates --from/--to usage with shell examples, which maps well to ref_from and ref_to. However, repo and output_format are never mentioned, and the defaults (e.g., ref_to defaults to WORKTREE) are only implicitly suggested by the example. This is partial but not complete compensation for the empty schema.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Translate' and the exact resource types ('path:line' or 'path::name'), then explains the mapping between refs. It differs clearly from sibling tools like find_divergence or search_structures by focusing on cross-commit location translation rather than scanning or diffing.

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?

It states explicit use cases: 'where a line or function is at another commit' and 'map a line number from one commit to another', which tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it lacks the explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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