get_locations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it resolves into source coordinates, is capability-gated, and works only with adapters supporting DAP 1.68+. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: core function, context, and escape hatch reference. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does, when it can be used, and where inputs come from. It lacks explicit output behavior but references an escape hatch for advanced needs.

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?

The input schema has one required integer parameter (location_reference) with 0% schema description coverage. The description explains it is a DAP location reference and hints at its origin, but does not fully specify its expected format or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool resolves a DAP locationReference into source coordinates, specifying the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'locationReference'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which include other debug operations but none that specifically convert location references.

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?

The description mentions it is capability-gated on supportsLocationsRequest and notes that location references come from variables or stack frames in DAP 1.68+ adapters. It also provides an escape hatch reference for unwrapped DAP requests. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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