sc:improve

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It implies code modification ('systematic refactoring') but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether changes are reversible. No details on what happens after execution.

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 with a parenthetical note, which is concise but not well-structured. It is front-loaded with the purpose but lacks headings or prioritized info. No wasted words, but it could be more informative.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success criteria, or how the flags and agent parameter affect behavior. The agent lacks sufficient information to confidently invoke the 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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further semantic value beyond the schema, but it does provide a high-level context of evidence-based improvement.

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 states 'Evidence-based code improvement with systematic refactoring' which gives a general purpose of improving code, but it lacks a specific verb-resource combination like 'refactor code' or 'improve code quality'. It mentions a category and priority, but does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools such as sc:analyze or sc:build.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sc:analyze or sc:design. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison with other sc: tools.

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