normalize_bundler_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('resolve...to raw files') but does not mention important behaviors such as failure modes for unresolvable paths, whether the operation is read-only, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and examples, with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes value.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and the description provides a clear high-level purpose. However, with no annotations, it lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., error handling, when to call it relative to sibling tools) that an agent would need to select and invoke it correctly. The schema fills parameter semantics, but overall guidance remains thin.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relevant examples of path prefixes that map to rawPath, but it does not explain how sourceRoot and projectRoot interact with resolution beyond what the schema already states. It adds minimal value over the 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('dynamic bundle references'), including concrete path examples (webpack://, ng://, Vite /@fs/) and the output ('raw files'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like retrace_stack, which focus on stack traces rather than path normalization.

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 implies the tool is for resolving source map path references, reinforced by the schema's rawPath description, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like retrieve_code_context or audit_sourcemap_match. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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