resolve_at

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the operation and return shape (like resolve()) but omits failure behavior, side effects, or safety assurances. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Two concise paragraphs plus bullet-like argument list. Every sentence earns its place. No redundancy, well front-loaded with purpose and usage context.

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?

Given output schema existence, description needn't detail return values beyond referencing resolve(). Covers all four parameters, usage context, and coordination with sibling. Complete for this tool.

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 0%, so description must explain all parameters. It provides clear semantics: file path type, 1-indexed line, 0-indexed column with coercion warning, and project_path default. Adds significant value beyond 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 clearly states it resolves a (file, line, column) position to a canonical Handle, specifically for coordinates from stack traces or error reports. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'resolve' tool by emphasizing coordinate-based input rather than name-based.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you have coordinates from a stack trace, error report, or pasted excerpt rather than a name'). Links to sibling 'resolve' for return shape. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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