Resolve source map position

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes original source, line, column and name, which is valuable since no output schema exists, but says nothing about lookup failures or missing mappings.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the mapping direction appear before the returned fields. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned components (source, line, column, name), and the single documented parameter is handled in the schema. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior and coordinate conventions, but an agent can call it correctly from what is present.

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 coverage is only 33%, and the description does not document targetId (the schema does) or the coordinate bases. It does add real meaning by making clear that line/column are *generated* coordinates being mapped back, which the raw integer schema alone does not convey.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Map ... back') and precise resource (a source map target's generated line/column), which is distinct from any sibling in the list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with alternatives such as hexvero_analyze, but the narrow source-map framing makes its role unmistakable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the other hexvero tools, nor on prerequisites or ordering. The only hint of workflow ('targetId returned by hexvero_open') lives in the schema, not the description.

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